Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

Scotland

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the change in the number of persons in employment in Scotland between 1964 and the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): It is provisionally estimated that the number of employees in employment in Scotland decreased by 35,000 between June, 1964 and March. 1968.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In a work of science fiction called the "Scottish Plan", the Government forecast an increase of 60,000 in the number of people in employment by 1970. Since we have gone halfway in the opposite direction, why not scrap the Scottish Plan and do something about its figures?

Mr. Fernyhough: Because we still have halfway to go. I hope that, when we reach the end, the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has been too premature with his Question.

Mr. Lawson: How much assistance are the Government getting in increasing employment in Scotland from purely Scottish firms as distinct from firms which come from America and other odd corners of the earth?

Mr. Fernyhough: It is not possible to give that information without notice.

Mr. R. Carr: Do the Government still adhere to the targets in the Scottish Plan?

Mr. Fernyhough: We still believe that, by 1970, there will be a considerable improvement in the economic position in Scotland as compared with what we inherited in 1964.

Prices and Incomes Board (Reports)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many reports have been made to the Government by the National Board for Prices and Incomes; in how many cases such reports recommended a reduction in prices; and how many of such recommendations for reduced prices have been put into effect.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Eighty-five, of which about half dealt with prices. Two reports recommended price reductions both of which were put into effect.

Mr. Blaker: In the light of these figures, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Board has a useful rôle to play with this work? Do not recent developments in connection with resale price maintenance show that competition is a more effective method?

Mr. Hattersley: I certainly do not minimise the importance and value of competition, nor of extending the application of competition. But I am equally sure that the Board has not only an important but a crucial rôle to play, as its 40-odd reports on prices and two recent price reductions which have come from those reports demonstrate.

Unemployment

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many months in 1967 and 1968 the total of wholly unemployed, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, has been above 500,000.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in how many months since April 1966, up to the latest available date, the monthly seasonally adjusted total of unemployed has exceeded 500,000.

Mr. Fernyhough: Seventeen, from May 1967, onwards.

Mr. Marten: In the light of that somewhat tragic commentary on Labour Party policy, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can answer simply two straighforward supplementary Questions. First, what is the level of unemployment which the Labour Party now regards as full employment in the light of its pledges? Secondly, when is it estimated that that will be achieved?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman already has the information asked for in the first supplementary Question. He merely wanted to ask it again today because he thought it would cause political embarrassment. He has asked the same question three times this year. We are pledged to full employment consistent with a viable economy.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many people were registered wholly unemployed on 1st October, 1968 or the nearest convenient date; and how many had been wholly unemployed for the nine months ended on that date.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 9th September, 1968, there were 535,000 persons registered as wholly unemployed in Great Britain. Comprehensive duration analyses of the wholly unemployed are made quarterly and the latest available is for July. At 8th July, 505,000 persons were registered as wholly unemployed, and 114,000 has been on the register for more than nine months.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not evident from these figures that we are now suffering the highest sustained level of unemployment since the war? Is it the new policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain a stagnant pool of unemployed to secure the viable economy to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred?

Mr. Fernyhough: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement put out last week by the Confederation of British Industry, which is now beginning to think in terms of a shortage of labour. We hope that we shall now make some inroads into this problem.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she has made an estimate of the level which unemployment is likely to reach this winter.

Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, but as my right hon. Friend has already said in the House, we are not prepared to give forecasts of the future level of unemployment.

Mr. Baker: The House will be perturbed that the Ministry is not prepared to make this forecast. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that unemployment is likely to remain at the high level which has been attained already and that that level could have been reduced if the retraining facilities of the Ministry had been much greater? Even at this late stage, would the hon. Gentleman consider introducing a crash programme to increase the retraining facilities?

Mr. Fernyhough: On the last point, let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the training facilities today, in four years since the Labour Government took office, are just double what they were after 13 years of Tory government and that by 1971 they will be trebled. I hope that as we increase the training facilities, involving additional public expenditure, we shall have no cries from hon. Members opposite about the increase in public expenditure.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to Question No. 18 the Secretary of State said that arrangements were being made for much more detailed forward manpower requirement planning? If all this work is being undertaken, why cannot the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the expected trend in the labour market?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Gentleman can give me a forecast of what the weather will be like between now and April, I could probably give him a better forecast of what unemployment there will be.

Mr. R. Carr: The Government must be clear about this matter. If greater attempts are to be made to plan manpower in advance, is it not essential that the estimate should be given? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister gave an estimate at the time of devaluation?

Mr. Fernyhough: I have been a Member of the House for longer than the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot remember a Minister of his party being prepared to give the information which the Opposition are trying to extract from us now.

Mr. Marten: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and of the reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Industrial Retraining (Scotland)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many applicants have been accepted for future retraining in industry in Scotland; and what number to date have been retrained since January 1965.

Mr. Hattersley: Figures for training carried out within industry as a whole are not available. On 9th September, 701 accepted applicants were awaiting admission to Government Training Centres in Scotland. Since January 1965, 4,617 persons have completed courses at these Centres.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is anxiety in Scotland about the possibility of future redundancy in the mining industry? What co-operation is there between industries in order to ensure adequate retraining for the men involved?

Mr. Hattersley: I am satisfied that the bulk of the retraining, which must be done under the aegis of the industrial training boards, is being carried out in an appropriate way. The Government are keeping an eye on the provisions made by the boards for Scotland to ensure that provision is made for the redundancy of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I also confirm that, as well as the Government training centre places having been increased substantially in the last 4 years, it is intended to continue the expansion of this programme up to 1971–72.

School-leavers (Scotland)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many school-leavers in Scotland are still unemployed since the last figures were given in July 1968.

Mr. Fernyhough: On 9th September, 1968, 1,402 school-leavers were registered as unemployed.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that we attach great importance to the figures for the number of unemployed school-leavers in Scotland? Is he aware

that last week a Scottish county reported that it had the smallest number of school-leavers unemployed since 1957?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am happy to learn that. The overall position is that there are more vacancies for school-leavers than there are unemployed school-leavers.

Industrial Disputes

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days were lost due to industrial disputes during the first nine months of 1968, compared with the corresponding periods of 1967, 1966 and 1965, respectively; and what improvement otherwise is occurring in strike losses.

Mr. Hattersley: The number of working days lost due to stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes during the first nine months of 1968 was 3,874,000 compared with 1,751,000, 2,043,000 and 2,511,000 during the corresponding periods of 1967, 1966 and 1965 respectively.

Sir G. Nabarro: Again, do not these figures demonstrate that the aggregation of days lost due to industrial disputes is steadily rising and this year has reached a crescendo? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to date in the motor industry alone £60 million of exports have been lost this year? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not minimise the importance of the figures which the hon. Gentleman has elicited from me. Neither does my right hon. Friend, who is adopting a policy of attacking the causes rather than the symptoms of the strikes. However, I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. The crescendo, if crescendo it was, was reached in 1959 or 1962 when appreciably more days were lost. However, I give that as a statistical correction and not in any way to minimise the importance of the figures which I have quoted today.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my hon. Friend any comparison of days lost through strikes in other countries? Is he aware that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has clearly shown that this country is no worse for industrial disputes and strikes than America?

Mr. Hattersley: That is a statistical fact, comparing days lost with totals of the working population, but my right hon. Friend has said in the past and I say again today that that is only one of the considerations to be borne in mind and that analysis and that comparison should not make us complacent about days lost in this country. My right hon. Friend is committed to adopting a policy which reduces the days lost here.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House when we are to have not words but action? Does not the Donovan Report clearly show that the trend of wild-cat strikes has been heavily rising over the last decade? This is the scourge of British industrial relations which must be tackled.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has had a great deal of action during the last three weeks concerning both the motor industry and the general engineering industry. However, I say now as I said in my main Answer that my right hon. Friend is attacking causes rather than symptoms, which is not so politically dramatic, but certainly more likely to bring a pause to this unfortunate figure.

Remploy Factories (Wages)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (I) why the men and women employed in Remploy factories are paid on an average £12 10s. and £9, respectively, which is below the national average; (2) why disabled men and women employed at Remploy factories do not receive equal wages, in view of the fact they are both disabled; and how many men and women so employed are receiving war or industrial injury pensions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Remploy wage rates are determined, as for industry in general, by consultation and negotiation between Remploy and the trade unions concerned. I am sure that this is the right way, and I do not think I ought to comment or intervene. I am afraid that no information is available on the incidence of war

or industrial pensioners in Remploy's severely disabled labour force.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the continued rise in the cost of living and as these people are not able to get any kind of bonus, why cannot this be considered again? Will not the hon. Gentleman look into the subject of the differentiation between pay for men and pay for women? They are equally disabled, so why can they not have equal pay for equal work?

Mr. Walker: I have made it clear that this is a matter for negotiation between the two sides of industry, as in the rest of industry, for the trade unions, representing the work people, and the employing body. Bonuses are paid. They were introduced during 1963–64 and they have led to a substantial increase in earnings compared with what they were pre-1963–64. That is in no way to detract from what are obviously low average wage levels. The same is true of equal pay as of general negotiations—that this is a matter for the two sides, and I hope that they will take account of the guidance offered recently by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House welcome the change in policy to encourage the establishment of Remploy factories and the wonderful work which is done, and that we also welcome the fact that the Government have changed the disgraceful policy followed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that any party has a monopoly of virtue in this matter. We have certainly increased the the volume of Government assistance to Remploy and if the opportunity affords and there is a necessity for it, we shall look carefully and sympathetically at the prospect of doing so again in future. The current support for Remploy is £3,750,000, which is about £500 per worker per annum.

Foreign Firms (Union Recognition)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will introduce legislation laying an obligation on foreign firms


operating in the United Kingdom to negotiate with trade unions in this country.

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Trade union recognition and effective collective bargaining are among the topics on which I am consulting industry in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is looking into this matter. Does she not agree that as the nationalised industries have been put under an obligation to negotiate with trade union organisations, there can be no obstacle in principle to solving the problem on the lines I suggest in my Question?

Mrs. Castle: The Royal Commission did not find that there was any particular problem of trade union recognition in connection with foreign firms. This rather forms part of the whole problem of dealing with non-unionism. As I said, we are consulting about the application of the Donovan recommendations.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Lady aware that most foreign companies co-operate exceedingly well with the trade unions concerned and have excellent labour relations? I can quote one company which has not had a strike in 94 years.

Mrs. Castle: The practice varies with foreign firms, just as it does with British firms. Some foreign firms are very good in this matter, while others have caused difficulties by refusing to recognise unionism. As I say, we must consider this in the context of the Donovan Report as a whole.

Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Lady make it clear that she is not proposing any separate legislation or discrimination against properly controlled foreign firms in this country as opposed to home based firms?

Mrs. Castle: I thought that my replies made that clear and I have repeated it more than once. This is not a problem which can be considered separately from the problems of non unionism as a whole.

Retail Prices

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the present trend in retail prices in relation to the objectives originally set out in paragraph 23 of Command Paper No. 3590.

Mr. Hattersley: The Retail Price Index rose by 4·5 per cent. between devaluation and September, 1968, Bearing in mind the predictable effects of devaluation and the budget measures, this indicates our success in avoiding unjustifiable increases in retail prices.

Mr. Barnes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that although, of course, many prices have gone up, there is nevertheless certainly a psychological element in what people believe to be the case? Has he any plans to provide more factual information about the way in which prices are behaving, particularly as between one type of retail outlet and another?

Mr. Hattersley: It is very difficult to provide adequate information about alternative forms of retail outlet, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking into the format of the publications which he produces to give an indication of the prices of food and related substances. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that our success in limiting price increases is far less well known than it should be and we are committed to doing all we can to bring home to the public the remarkable success which we have had in this respect.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to the Chancellor's post-devaluation strategy was a fall in the standard of living of the British people? Will he remind his right hon. Friend of that fact? Does he not agree that that strategy cannot be fulfilled unless price rises occur faster than rises in wages?

Mr. Hattersley: In his Budget statement and subsequent speeches the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it very clear that the Government expected increases in prices as a result of devaluation and as a result of his Budgetary measures. I have referred to them in my Answer this afternoon. But in no way


does our economic strategy require us to tolerate unnecessary price increases. Indeed, such increases would work against our economic strategy, and it is to that end my right hon. Friend has mounted her highly successful policy.

Thorne

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures of unemployment of adults and school-leavers in the Thorne district; and how these compare with the national average.

Mr. Fernyhough: At 14th October there were 833 adults and 111 young persons, of whom 40 were school-leavers registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Thorne employment exchange. The unemployment rate in the Doncaster, Askern and Thorne travel to work area was 4·3 per cent (provisional). On 9th September, the latest date for which comparable national figures are available, the rate was 4·4 per cent. and the corresponding figure for Great Britain was 2·3 per cent.

Mr. Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman now found a defence for the 11 per cent. unemployment in Thorne by a statistical swindle by amalgamating Thorne and two other areas of much lower unemployment? Why will he not persist in doing what he promised to do some time ago, and adopt special measures to help the 11 per cent. unemployed at Thorne?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry that my hon. Friend should question my integrity, because that is what this implies. I would not allow anyone to "cook" any books. What happened with regard to travel-to-work areas in Thorne has happened up and down the country, as successive Governments have tried to give a more realistic figure on an area basis. I know how deeply my hon. Friend feels about the Thorne problem, but he knows that the Board of Trade will look sympathetically at requests for industrial development certificates which may be required within the area.

Dundee Corporation Busmen (Strike)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement

on the recent strike of Dundee Corporation busmen.

Mr. Harold Walker: The strike started on 13th August, 1968, the day on which the Government referred a local pay agreement to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and imposed a standstill on its implementation. Work was resumed on 5th September. I greatly regret the inconvenience which was caused to the citizens of Dundee. The Board has now reported adversely on the agreement. The Report also shows that there is ample scope in Dundee for a real improvement in productivity and suggests ways of achieving this. The Manpower and Productivity Service of my Department is ready to help the Corporation and the Union in the application of the Board's recommendations.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that that Answer will be very encouraging to the people of Dundee, who have been so gravely inconvenienced. Is it not a fact that the Prices and Incomes Board, in its wisdom, said that the main clue to increased productivity in Dundee was the spread of single-man buses, and that the sole consequence of the strike has been the removal of those single-man buses which were in operation before the strike? Furthermore, is it not clear from a comparison of the way in which the right hon. Lady provoked this strike, the way in which she has treated the engineers last week, that the only criterion of a prices and incomes policy now is the ability of the union to blackmail the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Walker: What the hon. Gentleman says is misleading, because there were three recommendations in the Board's Report. The operation of one-man buses was but one of them. Whether one-man buses have been withdrawn at present is open to question. Negotiations are taking place. The settlement referred to the Board had to be seen against the background of the national negotiations in which my right hon. Friend was then participating. As to the convenience or otherwise of the citizens of Dundee, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that such an increase in wages as was proposed in the original agreement would


require, in order to clear the deficit of the Transport Committee, a rise in fares of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., and I am sure that that, too, would inconvenience the citizens of Dundee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers must be reasonably brief, too.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many cases of Selective Employment Tax have so far been heard by tribunals under the procedure laid down in Section 7 of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966; and how many such cases have been referred to the courts.

Mr. Hattersley: By 30th September, 1968, 1,094 cases under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, had been heard by industrial tribunals. Of these, 47 had been taken on appeal to the courts.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that this is a further example of what a silly tax S.E.T. is? Does she realise that it is one of the causes of rising unemployment? Would she now accept that she is giving employment to lawyers, instead of to those who are really producing?

Mr. Hattersley: That is in no way revealed by the answer, and even if the supplementary question was in any way relevant the answer to it would be "No."

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, what assessment she has made on the impact of Selective Employment Tax on the employment of part-time workers; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: As the House is aware, provision was made in the Finance Acts of 1967 and 1968 in respect of part-time employees, which were aimed to discourage any tendency for employers in the tax bearing industries to discharge such workers. In the absence of any comprehensive statistics of part-time employment no quantitative assessment of the effect of Selective Employ-

ment Tax can be made, but the indications are that the objects of these provisions are being achieved.

Mr. Holland: As this particular part of the Tax seems to bear most harshly on women who have to seek part-time employment, because of home responsibilities, can the hon. Gentleman say what representations the Minister has made to the Chancellor, in order to obtain some modification on this part of the Tax?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman no disservice by saying that his supplementary question implies that he does not know what was provided for in the 1967–68 Finance Acts, which is the refund in tax-bearing sectors for part-timers doing less than 21 hours a week. Surely that is the result of the sort of representations he would like us to make—made two or three years ago.

Departmental Intelligence Units

Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the setting up of the new productivity, manpower planning and intelligence units in her Department.

Mrs. Castle: Since I announced, on 2nd May, my intention of setting up a Manpower and Productivity Department, the recruitment of about 20 consultants with suitable management and trade union experience is well advanced. Their job is to give specialised advice on improving productivity by the more efficient deployment of manpower and to act as a mobile task force to assist my industrial relations staff in the regions whose numbers are being increased from 60 to 90. A number of firms are already seeking our help. Particular attention is also being paid to assessing short-term manpower prospects, both nationally and in particular regions and localities, identifying future shortages and surpluses of labour.
I have also set up a Research and Planning Division to carry out and commission research into subjects throughout the manpower field to give expert advice on day-to-day policy issues and to assist in the development of long-term policies.

Mr. Holland: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that feminine intuition,


formidable though it may be, is not a wholly adequate substitute for hard facts in decision-making? Can she give an assurance that these units will not be held up for lack of finance in carrying out the research as expeditiously as possible?

Mrs. Castle: It is just because I do not think intuition, feminine or masculine, is adequate in this sphere that I have set up this new service.

Wages

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what criteria it is proposed to apply to wage increases taking effect after the end of 1970.

Mrs. Castle: A decision on incomes policy after the end of 1969 has not been taken. I have asked the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and also the N.B.P.I. to join in a study of what incomes policy should be after the expiry of the current legislation.

Mr. Speed: If, for example, pay increases for women workers, phased over a seven-year period to bring about equal pay, are entered into now what guarantee can the right hon. Lady give us that employers will not be forced to repudiate the promises in perhaps 1971?

Mrs. Castle: Obviously if a phased programme for the introduction of equal pay was negotiated and agreed by the Government, they would not ask the employer to repudiate such a programme.

Productivity Agreements

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many proposed productivity agreements are at present being helped to function by the intervention of her Department; and how many civil servants are employed on this task.

Mr. Harold Walker: In September my right hon. Friend's Manpower and Productivity Service, as part of its advisory work, discussed productivity agreements in 29 cases and closely related matters in 69 others. The service has about 60 civil servants in the regions to carry out this and other functions.

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the productivity agreement, which presumably will emerge

from the engineering settlement, be nationally negotiated and will the Ministry have a hand in it?

Mr. Walker: No agreement has yet emerged. It has not yet reached the stage of the involvement of incomes policy, and I am sure that the whole House would agree that, in view of the delicate situation with which we are confronted, it would not be helpful if I were to comment.

Mr. Higgins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if an increased payment is made as a result of the productivity agreement before the productivity is achieved, this will be inflationary, and would such a payment be against the prices and incomes policy or not?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend will be making a statement at the end of Question Time, if she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, about the situation in the engineering industry and the progress of the negotiations.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that, with the introduction of productivity agreements, particularly in the construction industry, there will be the fullest consultation with the workers on the sites who will operate those agreements as well as with their national trade union leaders?

Mr. Walker: Full consultation is an essential element in obtaining full cooperation, and we shall seek through the normal industrial channels to have the fullest consultation possible.

Engineering Industry (Dispute)

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement regarding the dispute in the engineering industry.

Mrs. Castle: I will, with permission, answer this Question at the end of Questions.

Industrial Accidents

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the question of industrial accidents and their cost to the nation.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if, in view of the rise in industrial accidents by 40,000 to 938,000 in 1967, she will recommend that a Royal Commission be set up to investigate such accidents and their prevention.

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I am naturally concerned to reduce the number of industrial accidents, but I do not think that the establishment of a Royal Commission would be the best way of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1967 more than 24 million man days were lost on account of industrial accidents, which is about eight times the figure of man days lost through industrial disputes? Is it not time that this matter was given a more searching investigation?

Mrs. Castle: I assure my hon. Friend that to achieve a reduction in industrial accidents is one of my major preoccupations, but I cannot agree with him that to set up a Royal Commission is the best way of achieving it. I am already advised by my Industrial Safety Advisory Council., which represents both sides of industry, and I am satisfied that this gives me the insight into the problem which I need.

Mr. Allaun: Why it is not the best way when Royal Commissions have been considered appropriate for betting and marriage and divorce, when this proposal has considerable union support, and when, in addition to the figures given by my hon. Friend, there is the mass of human suffering involved? It is not only a question of days lost.

Mrs. Castle: It is essential that we get the figures clear, because there has been a good deal of confusion about them, as my Chief Inspector of Factories pointed out in his Annual Report for 1967. In that year, just over 304,000 accidents were reported under the Factories Act compared with 296,600 in the previous year. These figures include quite a number of minor injuries such as sprains. The 938,000 quoted in the Question is the number of successful claims for industrial injury benefit, which is not the best measure of accidents. It is encouraging that the number of fatalities dropped by 137—to 564.

Ashington and Morpeth

Mr. Will Owen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many school-leavers are at present signing for employment at the employment exchanges in Ashington and Morpeth in the county of Northumberland; and what action is being taken to assist them.

Mr. Fernyhough: On 14th October, 1968, 43 school-leavers were registered as unemployed at Ashington and 7 at Morpeth. Youth employment officers are making every effort to help these young persons find employment.

Mr. Owen: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be too complacent about the growth of unemployment among school-leavers. Is he aware that with the decline in the mining industry recruitment in that field is now limited? Would he consider the establishment of an East Northumberland Training Centre so that these young people may have some assurance of employment as new industry unfolds?

Mr. Fernyhough: I cannot give my hon. Friend a reply to the last part of his supplementary question today, but we will write to him. On the first part, the number of school-leavers has substantially dropped since August, when the figure was 101 in Ashington and 31 in Morpeth. My hon. Friend can be assured that, knowing the effect of unemployment on young people, my officers and I will do all we can to speed up the provision of employment for them.

Building and Civil Engineering Industries

Mr. R. Carr: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement regarding her decision to extend the period allowed to the National Board for Prices and Incomes to report on her reference to them of the wage structure in the building and civil engineering industries, and the effect which this extension will have on industrial relations in those industries, in view of the fact that their current three-year wage agreement expires at the beginning of November.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment


and Productivity (1) what reply she has given to the request by the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes for a further extension of the time required to produce the reports on the wage structures of the building and civil engineering industries; and whether she will make a statement;
(2) when she expects to receive the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes regarding the wage structure of the building and civil engineering industries; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I greatly regret that it has been necessary to extend the period allowed for these references. We fully realise the difficulties this has caused for the industries. The Board was asked to deal with three important and complex references within a very restricted time. Its timetable was therefore, from the start, extremely tight and unfortunately the results of its earnings surveys in the industries have been delayed. We have had to accept that the Board could not report without this final information. We have been assured that a comprehensive report will be published before the end of November.

Mr. Carr: Does the right hon. Lady realise that, not only has the Board taken longer than the three months which it is supposed to take in these matters, but that the reference to the Board came late in the day after considerable delay? This sort of delay overrunning the end of the long-term agreement is liable to cause bad industrial relations.

Mrs. Castle: I regret the delay as much as the right hon. Gentleman does. It is a pity that there has been this overrun. There was some delay in starting the references because last-minute representations were received which had to be the subject of rather detailed and protracted consultations. Since the Board started its earnings survey, it has found that the response was so much above expectation—60 per cent. instead of 40 per cent.—that it has taken longer to process it, but I think that the result will be a very thorough job.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: But was there not a delay on the part of the Govern-

ment before they consulted the N.F.B.T.E. and the N.F.B.T.O. in April of this year, a delay of six months between November, 1967 and April, 1968 which could have been avoided?

Mrs. Castle: No, I do not think that there was any serious delay in deciding on this and going through the normal consultations. These meetings were concluded on 1st May and then last-minute representations were received.

Tyneside and Northumberland

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many young people under the age of 21 years are unemployed on Tyneside and Northumberland, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Fernyhough: Separate figures for persons under 21 are not available. On 9th September, 1968, 2,084 young people under the age of 18 were registered as unemployed on Tyneside and 1,833 in Northumberland.

Dame Irene Ward: As there have been repeated occasions when there have been far too many unemployed young people on Tyneside and in Northumberland, will the hon. Gentleman please give an assurance that plans in future will be made well in advance? Will he give an assurance that there is a plan, and will he tell us what the plan is.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Lady is well aware that last year, for instance, the North received between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total investment programme. The hon. Lady is aware that three times as many industrial development certificates were received as should have been received in relation to the insured employees. The hon. Lady knows full well what we are trying to do. I hope that the new industries which are now being set up in the North-East will provide the job opportunities for young people about which she is as concerned as I am.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend give an indication of the length of time for which some young people have been out of work, since there is anxiety on Tyneside about this problem?

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry, I cannot give that information without notice, but I will write to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Questions

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will amend the order in which Ministers answer Questions by abolishing the existing Welsh and Scottish Question days and replacing them with days where Questions from every region of the United Kingdom can in turn be taken.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Fred Peart): No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Although we understand some of the difficulties, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the present set-up produces an unhealthy form of nationalism and, at the same time, gives undoubted advantages to hon. Members who represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales over those who represent constituencies in England? Would he not agree that this is merely a matter of a square deal for hon. Members who represent constituencies other than in Scotland and Wales, and that many of us would welcome an extension—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be brief, please, on this important issue.

Mr. Roberts: Many of us would welcome the extension of the Parliamentary working year to enable other regions of Great Britain to receive equal treatment.

Mr. Peart: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. I deplore unhealthy nationalism, but my hon. Friend must appreciate that the inclusion of Scotland and Wales in the roster is justified because specific Ministers have responsibilities exclusive to those areas, and no area claims the exclusive attention of particular Ministers. It is for this reason that we have that arrangement.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Has the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Bedfordshire (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) not shown amazing parochialism and ignorance by putting that question? Does the

Minister not appreciate that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for answering Questions which are answered by an equivalent of seven Government Ministers on a national basis, and that he does not answer these Questions very well in any event?

Mr. Peart: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should disagree when I say that I deplore unhealthy nationalism. He knows full well the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Secretary of State for Wales. My answer was precise, and I should have thought that it would have been accepted. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that this is a party matter.

Mr. James Griffiths: While I share the view of my right hon. Friend that Welsh Questions must go on, may I ask whether he would agree that it would be a great pity if we were to lose the lovely Welsh accent of my hon. Friend?

Mr. Peart: I think that the loss of accents would be a tragedy for any reason. I deplore the standardisation of English.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Lord Privy Seal when, in the next Session of Parliament, he plans to move to set up a Select Committee to review the problems arising on the rules governing Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. Peart: I hope that a Select Committee on Procedure will be set up very early in the new Session. I have noted this as one possible subject for their consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In noting subjects for their consideration will the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that, whereas the number of Ministers and the scope of their intervention in the national life has steadily widened over the years, the time available for oral Questions is no greater than it was in 1945? In those circumstances, will he consider this as a matter of urgency, and set up a Select Committee to recommend quickly an improvement which will enable hon. Members to have a reasonable chance of putting an oral Question to a Minister?

Mr. Peart: As I said, I am aware of this; that is why I gave the answer I did.

Public Schools (First Report)

Mr. Berry: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the first Report on Public Schools was not available to Members of Parliament in the Vote Office on the day of publication.

Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 14th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 46.]

Mr. Berry: Does not the Minister agree that, where it is necessary to use a green form, hon. Members, having filled one in, should receive a Report on the day of issue and not subsequently?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the reply of the Secretary of State on the Newsom Report. I need not repeat the answer; I thought it was reasonable. He said that he would try to avoid any difficulty.

New Members

Mr. Marten: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many hon. Members have now informed him of their support for the proposals that new Members desiring to take their seats may be called on to do so immediately after Question Time, rather than after the end of Statements to the House.

Mr. Peart: I have had representations only from the hon. Member himself, although I see that five other hon. Members have signed the Early Day Motion tabled by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that small number is mainly because it was during the Recess? Could the Minister not take appropriate action such as referring it to the Committee on Procedure? This is a very simple, very small matter, and there are three by-elections pending.

Mr. Peart: I understand the hon. Member's concern on this question. As he said, it is a simple, small matter. I do not detect any major volume of opinion in the House for a change. I have noted what he says, but I do not think that I could change it.

House of Commons Committees (Clerks)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many additional Clerks have been recruited for the service of House of Commons committees; and whether the total number of Clerks will now be up to establishment.

Mr. Peart: Two new Clerks were appointed on 1st August last, and the appointment of a temporary clerk has been extended. The total number of clerks is now thirty-nine. Two new higher executive officer posts have also been authorised, to assist in the work of Committees. It is hoped that during the coming Session it will be possible to increase the total number of clerks up to the establishment of 42.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that meanwhile the Clerks in post are under a great deal of unnecessary pressure, brought on by the fact that we are under establishment? Can he say whether this state of affairs will inhibit the Government in establishing further Specialist Committees, which have been such a hopeful development of the last year or so?

Mr. Peart: I appreciate the positive approach of my hon. Friend. I think he is right about this matter. Inevitably the number of Clerks—and the Clerks give great service to the House—affects the setting up of Specialist Committees. I am aware of this, and I am continually in touch with the Chancellor on this matter. I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not the complement of 42 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred laid down before the decision to expand the number of Select and Specialist Committees, and is not the whole working of that system, whatever view one takes of it, being prejudiced by the inadequate number of extremely hard-worked Clerks?

Mr. Peart: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I accept this. That is why, as I have said, I am in touch with the Chancellor. This is a very important matter. Hon. Members who are so enthusiastic about reforms forget that we must have the staff to meet these requirements.

Specialist Committees (Scotland)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now initiate the establishment of a Specialist Committee to investigate the activities of the Scottish Office, and the activities of other Government Departments in Scotland.

Mr. Peart: I shall bear this suggestion in mind when I bring proposals for setting up Select Committees before the House early next Session. But I cannot enter into any commitments at this stage.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether that Answer has been influenced by the fact that we are short of Clerks, or is my right hon. Friend saying that he agrees very much in principle with the importance of establishing such a Committee but that he is prevented from doing so until there are available the required number of Clerks to man the Committees?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has put to me a very subtle question. Of course I must bear in mind the ability to staff Committees. I have said that, and the hon. Member will have appreciated my reply to the previous Question. There are matters affecting Scotland and Wales; I am pressurised by many hon. Members from different parts of the country, as indeed was shown in a previous Question, to consider the needs of other areas as well. All these factors must be borne in mind. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but perhaps early in the next Session, as I have said, I may be able to make a more definite pronouncement.

Mr. David Steel: When the Leader of the House is bearing this in mind over the next week or two, will he bear in mind also that the Secretary of State for Scotland, even as distinct from the Secretary of State for Wales, has executive responsibilities to this House which are the equivalent of seven or eight Ministries, that, therefore, the capacity of the individual Member to cross-examine him on individual matters of policy is much less than with other Ministers, and that the establishment of this Specialist Committee is a good suggestion, which would go a long way to improve the responsibilities of Government to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the desire of several hon. Members to have this Specialist Committee. I said that I must look at many sides of this. I will bear the matter in mind.

Parliamentary Proceedings (Sound Recording Equipment)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the cost of importing sound equipment for use in recording the proceedings in Parliament; and to what extent export orders to reciprocate have been negotiated by Her Majesty's Government with the European country concerned.

Mr. Peart: I understand that the imported element in this contract amounted to £1,500. The selection was made after a careful survey and competitive tendering.
It would, of course, be impossible to try to match every import with a corresponding export.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the exhortation of the Government to everybody else to replace imports with home products, should we not set an example in this place, even though it is only a matter of £1,000 or so for tape recorders, and not have overseas cutlery and tape recorders?

Mr. Peart: I have explained the difficulties. This applies to a much wider field than materials which we import here. I would hate not to have good French wines, even here.

Northern Ireland (Questions)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the convention whereby members of the House are unable to discuss matters or table questions relating to the administration in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peart: No, Sir. The House is already free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field.

Mr. McNamara: But would not my right hon. Friend understand that that is a most disappointing Answer, particularly in view of the brutalities which we witnessed on television in Londonderry a week last Saturday and particularly


because of statements in the Press this week that the Royal Ulster Constabulary were stationed on H.M.S. "Eagle" the evening before they went into action in Londonderry and also because—

Captain Orr: On a point of order. The Lord Privy Seal said that it is not his intention that the convention should be upset whereby questions are asked which are properly within the confines of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Surely, this is precisely what the hon. Member is now trying to do.

Mr. Speaker: The question is about whether Ministers should change the convention.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be brief.

Mr. McNamara: I wanted to raise a point further to that point of order, but, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I will curtail my remarks. In view of the fact that this Government give a subvention to the Northern Ireland Government of over £100 million a year, surely we in this House can discuss civil rights for our own fellow citizens?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I answered what I think was really the point at issue, in relation to the constitutional position over responsibility. I did not seek to deploy an argument about matters which my hon. Friend has raised concerning brutality, which I deplore. As I said, the House is already free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field. It is up to my hon. Friend to make his position felt if he so wishes.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering these matters, would he bear in mind that it is ill-informed sniping of the kind which we have just heard which may in the end drive people in Northern Ireland into undesirable entrenched positions and, indeed, destroy moderate opinion there?

Mr. Peart: No one in the House wishes to encourage bigotry, from whatever quarter it may come. I deplore it. It is only right that we should, by our

actions, encourage free discussion, above all in areas where we have responsibilities. That is important. I merely say that it is open to individuals to make their points.

Mr. Fitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom Government have been prevented from signing the European Convention on Human Rights because of the existence of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland? Would he not regard this as a most appropriate matter to be discussed by all sections in the House? Further, is he aware that it is only by question and answer and discussion in the House that we can relieve the frustration which has brought about such a tense situation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be brief.

Mr. Fitt: Finally, on the matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), will he give an assurance that the defence forces of the Crown will not go to the aid of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party in the suppression of civil liberties?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last part of that question is out of order.

Mr. Peart: I understand my hon. Friend's feeling on this. As I said, I deplore brutality—[Interruption.]—indeed, from whatever side it may come. That is not in question. I have always argued, as hon. Members know, for good relations between north and south. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I tried to encourage this: unfortunately, some hon. Members opposite tried to disagree with me on this, but I believe that I was right to do it. I merely say that hon. Members have opportunities in the House. The House is free to discuss, on an appropriate Motion, those Northern Ireland affairs which are within the transferred field. That is the position, and hon. Members have that right.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one cause of concern is that the Government have not merely stood by the 1920 Act but have interpreted certain conventions which have no juridical validity to suppress debate in this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must link his remark with the Question.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when this House is expected to vote millions of pounds every year to Ulster, and when Ulster Members of Parliament have no inhibitions about interfering in our internal affairs, it is quite intolerable that this House does not urgently and in detail discuss matters going on in Ulster today?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I have answered the Question and have not tried to evade it. He has raised a wider question. It is up to hon. Members to make representations to Ministers concerned. I am merely suggesting the position for which I answer as Leader of the House. If it is constitutionally possible to have a debate on these issues, it is for hon. Members to make their representations.

Select Committees' Reports (Debate)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many days of Government time he proposes to allocate in the next Session to debates on Reports of Select Committees.

Mr. Peart: I am not ready to make new proposals, although I am, of course, always ready to look at the Session's arrangements.

Mrs. Short: But is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the niggardly amount of time given for discussion of Reports coming from Select Committees. As the Select Committees have now been expanded and increased in number, will he undertake that the amount of time to discuss those Reports will also be increased?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows that I am always anxious to take note of Reports of Select Committees. Throughout the Session, there have been seven and a half days on which Select Committee Reports have been or could have been dented. That is 4·4 per cent. of the Session. I am anxious to do this.

Waste Paper

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the value and weight of

waste paper collected annually from the House of Commons.

Mr. Peart: Separate figures for waste paper collected from the House of Commons are not available. But collections from the Palace of Westminster as a whole are approximately of the order of 143 tons per annum.
The revenue derived from disposal has always been confidential for commercial reasons.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the weight of paper which comes into the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Peart: I am afraid that I should waste the efforts of the staff if I were to require that figure.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)

Mr. Carr: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement regarding the dispute in the engineering industry.

Mrs. Castle: With permission, I will now answer Question No. 27.
The House will be glad to know that the strike which was due to begin today is not now taking place. However, the dispute has not been resolved and the situation is to be further considered by a conference of executive representatives of unions affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions which is to take place next Friday.
Negotiations continued throughout last week following the meeting of the parties under my chairmanship last Monday. A substantial measure of agreement was achieved, but final agreement at the last stage of the negotiations last Friday was not possible. The unions were unable to accept the terminal minimum rate of fl 3 per week for women included in the employers' final offer.
The employers said that they were unable to make any further increase in the money offered. I invited both sides to consider whether a resolution of the


difficulty might be found by some redistribution of the various elements of the package, but no agreement was found possible on these lines.
I greatly regret that arduous negotiations, which had resulted in a wide measure of agreement over important matters including valuable productivity features, were not eventually crowned with success. The House will share my hope that the further consideration of the situation which is now taking place will finally result in a satisfactory agreement.

Mr. Carr: We share the right hon. Lady's pleasure at the postponement of the strike and also share her hope that the further negotiations will finally avert it, and the House will not wish to press points which might make that more difficult.
May I ask her a question on one point, however? Has she given to the two sides, and will she give to the public at large, any indication whether the settlement al present projected falls within the Government's incomes policy? I am sure that she will realise, will she not, that for a voluntary agreement to be reached and then for it to fall foul of the incomes policy would make a very serious position much worse? Is she aware that the proposals, at least as they appeared in the Press, are very different in both scale and scope from the recommendations in the P.I.B. Report?

Mrs. Castle: In so far as it is possible at this stage to cost the proposals in any final form, it would appear that they were broadly in line with the prices and incomes policy, because they contain many important productivity features and, spread over the period of three to four years involved, would be within the ceiling.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we on this side of the House are not insensitive to the efforts which she made during the whole of last week to resolve the difficulty? I hope that all Members of the House extended good will to her at that time. But will she also bear in mind that the strike is only postponed for a fortnight? The engineering industry is the greatest industry in the country and there is need

to study in a more leisurely atmosphere the question of differentials, which are, after all, the incentives to the craftsman, and to attempt to get some sort of justice in this complicated industry.

Mrs. Castle: The House should realise that there is not and never has been in existence a decision by the National Committee of the A.E.U. to strike. That is the starting point which I think will encourage us all to believe that the use by the unions concerned of the period ahead, particularly the period lying between now and next Friday when the executive of the unions of the Confederation meet, will produce a satisfactory outcome and an agreement.

Mr. Holland: May I ask whether the difficulty over the women's minimal earnings is due to a request for an exactly proportional increase in women's earnings, or to a request for more than a proportional increase? In other words, would it close the gap between the women's rate and the skilled rate?

Mrs. Castle: The difficulty over the women's rates arises from the fact that the increase in the employers' offer for skilled men to a terminal minimum rate of £19 meant a widening of the differential for the women, because the employers were not prepared to accept the implication of that higher figure for the men's differential. That is the difficulty. But it is true that because the vast majority of women have earnings which are very near their minimum level, whereas the vast majority of men have earnings well above their minimum level, the cash value of the increase to the women is considerable.

Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the engineering workers have been extremely tolerant over the many months for which these negotiations have been protracted? Would she not urge the engineering employers to come to terms with the unions in their justified claim? Surely she recognises that this in itself is a very modest claim for such an important industry to the country. Does she not also recognise that it is not high earnings and better conditions which are a barrier to our economy, but that these very factors can lead to an expansion of industry and to much better results?

Mrs. Castle: My purpose during the past week was to bring the two sides together and to see whether, by weighing the problems and the needs of both sides of industry, a settlement could be reached. We got very near it. Very substantial progress was made. Concessions were made by both sides. They were constructive negotiations. I regret that they have foundered on this point. I think that the House will agree that it would be unwise for me, at this delicate stage of negotiations, to go any further into the details at issue.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the reality of the situation that the productivity proposals are a means whereby further increases will be negotiated at local levels in response to local conditions? In that situation, is it not clear that what the settlement proposes is an increase of about 3 per cent. which, for a settlement of this magnitude, means that 3 per cent. now becomes the norm?

Mrs. Castle: No. I would not accept that as being so, because there have been detailed discussions and quite far-reaching agreement on important principles governing plant bargaining. There is no doubt at all that the employers themselves believe that a very important advance has been made in the discussion of such techniques as work measurement and job evaluation, and also in getting the unions to agree that these techniques should form the basis of plant bargaining which in future should be linked closely to productivity.
When the plant bargaining takes place, more money is forthcoming, but, as the employers have pointed out, our concern is to see that instead of an inflationary wages drift at plant bargaining level we get real productivity bargaining.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend take every step to ensure that during these negotiations nothing is done either to delay or to prejudice the Government's declared policy of implementing equal pay for women?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly. I am sure that my hon. Friend is the first to recognise my concern about the question of equal pay. Indeed, very early in the discussions I urged the unions to consider their priorities in this matter, and I also suggested that we might meet this

immediate problem by a redistribution of the mix of concessions in the package. But it is important to those who are concerned about equal pay to recognise that it is not just a question of narrowing the differentials between two different types and grades of work. It is supremely a question of getting away from the whole concept of a woman's rate, which is in itself demeaning to women.
We need to grade work rationally on the basis of job evaluation, regardless of who does it, and I welcome a step in this direction in that the employers, during the negotiations, offered to set up as part of the agreement a joint working party to consider the properly evaluated grading of the work which women do. I still hope and believe that we can make some progress on this subject.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we, too, appreciate the efforts which she has made to reach a successful conclusion? Is she also aware that my hon. Friends and I wish her every success and hope that further meetings may be successful in avoiding what would be an extremely damaging dispute to the economic life of the country? Would she accept that part of the responsibility for this situation must rest with the Conservative Party for its violent opposition to any incomes policy whatever and its encouragement of the intransigent attitude on behalf of the unions?

Mrs. Castle: Grateful though I am to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, I suggest to him that the important thing for us all to remember now is that in this, our most major pay claim of the year, there has been recognition by both sides that the answer must be found through increased productivity, proper wage systems, job evaluation and work measurement. This is a genuine mark of the success of the emphasis which we have been laying on productivity in the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Atkinson: My right hon. Friend has reported to the House that the employers stated that they could not offer more money—more than the global amount—because the industry could not afford it. She is also reported as having some sympathy with this view. Would she now say how this opinion can be supported if the employers, her Ministry and the trade unions have no idea of the


total amount involved in this global sum in the negotiations?

Mrs. Castle: I do not think that I have ever given any indication that we have no idea of the global amount. Assessments have been made by the employers and by others; that the cost of the concessions so far made would be in the region of £160 million a year. I am merely saying now that at this stage there is no agreement before my Ministry, so that we have not had to give our own costing.

Mr. Higgins: Would the right hon. Lady clarify her view of the productivity criteria? Is it her view that if a payment is made under a productivity agreement before productivity has gone up, that is inflationary, while if it is made after productivity has gone up it is not inflationary? Does she regard one as being contrary to the other?

Mrs. Castle: The Prices and Incomes Board has time and again recognised that if, as part of a national negotiation, there can be agreement, and real agreement, on productivity guide lines, then this is worth some money, and that then the detailed application of those productivity guide lines at plant level is worth some more money. This is the basis on which we have been discussing the matter.

Mr. Barnett: Does this not illustrate the unreality of bargaining at national level over matters which have frequently been settled already at local level? What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with a view to settling these matters in future at a more realistic level?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is drawing attention to one of the themes in the Donovan Report, which the Government have broadly welcomed. It is that there is no doubt that the realistic bargaining takes place, and must take place, at plant level. We have at the moment, however, a problem to solve. We cannot just

abandon the national machinery overnight. Even Donovan recognised that there were some matters that were appropriate for agreement at national level. We must, therefore, progress slowly towards the devolution of decision to plant level.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that if the aggregation of the productivity increase does not reach the total cost of the settlement envisaged—namely, £275 million and not £160 million—all confidence in her prices and incomes policy will be wrecked?

Mrs. Castle: I would only reply to the hon. Gentleman—who, I think, is trying to introduce damaging matters into a delicate situation: I deplore this. I do not accept his figure of £275 million as being the final figure. There is a difference between what it will cost the firms involved in the Federation and what it will cost the industry as a whole. I am not putting any final figure before the House. Apart from the point of disagreement on which the talks broke down, the employers believe that the proposals which they had worked out were very sound and valuable for the industry as a whole.

Mr. Heffer: In discussing this matter, would my right hon. Friend bear two points in mind: first, on the question of women's wages, that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not mean that there should be a lowering of the men's rate, which I understand is being or is likely to be argued; and, secondly, that productivity agreements do not necessarily mean that trade unionists must give up longstanding practices which they have gained over a period of many years?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is now asking me to do what I asked the House not to ask me to do, namely, to comment on the details in the package. It would be most unwise for me to go into that matter at this delicate moment, while the negotiations are suspended.

TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Clause 73

OBJECTIONS TO GRANT OF SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 85 agreed to: In page 106, line 24, leave out "a public" and insert "an".

Clause 74

DECISION ON APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 86: In page 107, line 28, leave out from "reliability" to "by" in line 29 and insert:
,cost and such other matters relevant to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried as may be prescribed; and the licensing authority shall assess the relative importance of those factors".

3.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment gives the Minister power, by regulation, to add to the factors of speed, reliability and cost by reference to which the comparison between road and rail services is to be made in the quantity licensing cases. There are other matters relevant to the needs of the consigner.
It is important that there should be no misunderstanding about the purpose of the Amendment. It is not an attempt to alter the policy of quantity licensing. Quite the opposite. The Government have made plain their intention that the expression "speed, reliability and cost" shall be interpreted very broadly so as to include not only such specific matters as packaging and insurance costs, risk of damage to goods, or the need for larger inventories, but also flexibility and convenience. To give effect to this intention, the Bill contains a power for the Minister, by regulation, to direct licensing authorities about how the factors should be interpreted.

Mr. John H. Osborn: In Committee, we were unable to

discuss these variants because of the Guillotine and on Report on 29th May the Government voted against an Amendment on this issue. I am glad that this Amendment, moved by Lord Merrivale in another place, has been accepted by the Government. Many factors, including problems of insurance, the transport of fragile goods, fruit and electronic equipment, go beyond the three criteria presented in this Clause, which will be criteria of quantity licensing.
Having had this concession, which means that there will be discussions between the Minister of Transport and industry as to what these criteria are, it would be helpful to be told how the Minister proposes to issue these regulations. Will they be presented to this House, or will they be the normal sort of regulations which are outside our procedure? What is the system for providing that what may be prescribed is done? The concession is welcome, but it would be useful to have a little more information about how the Minister proposes to proceed, because the subject raises many points which were raised in Committee and which were, as some of us thought, rather summarily dismissed on Report.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for having accepted this Amendment. As hon. Members will be aware, it touches on a point that I have raised many times, which is that speed, reliability and cost are not sufficient as criteria. The Amendment goes quite a long way to meeting points raised over a number of years, and particularly my frequent references to the 1959 Report of the Traders' Road Transport Association which gave some reasons why people use various forms of transport.
The Amendment covers part of the point, and I am grateful that notice has been taken of it.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I, too, appreciate the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. It is an important concession, and will be welcomed by everyone who uses road transport to convey goods. When the criteria are agreed, will the Ministry, and the Parliamentary Secretary in particular, bear in mind the peculiar needs of people who are conveying such perishable goods as horticultural


produce and fish from the areas of Cornwall represented by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and myself? I hope that the needs of those conveying perishable goods for long distances will be borne in mind.

Mr. Bob Brown: With the leave of the House, I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that the House can discuss implementation. Again, I can assure the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) that the question of perishable goods will be very much borne in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Clause 91

INTERPRETATION OF PART V

Lords Amendment No. 101: In page 121, line 9, at end insert:
but construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.

Read a Second time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment would exclude construction sites from the definition of "operating centre" and thus make it extremely difficult in practice to apply quality licensing to vehicles in the construction industry. Hon. Members will know that there have been many discussions on the subject, and that we have had a series of meetings with representatives of the industry on the particular problems that will confront them in relation to the licensing system.
We understand the special position of those in the industry in that they are continually moving vehicles about the country and setting up new operating centres from site to site. We do not wish to burden the industry with unnecessary controls. That is why Clause 61(2)(b) provides that vehicles can operate from a

site for up to three months without the site becoming an operating centre or a transport manager being required to operate it.
Even more important, perhaps, from the point of view of the industry, is Clause 65(3), which provides that while the licensing authorities will start from the assumption of one transport manager per operating centre, they will have complete discretion to allow one manager to supervise several centres if the operator can show that this would not be an unsafe arrangement.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), will recall that we discussed this point in Committee, and emphasised that the discretion exists. Clearly, cases in which people were confronted with the sort of problems there are in the industry, would be appropriate cases for the employment for that kind of discretion. Nevertheless, as we see it, it would not be right to exclude these sites from the definition of "operating centre", as to do so might make the quality licensing scheme ineffectual from that point of view.
Therefore, bearing in mind this important element of flexibility in the discretion of the licensing authorities, and the fact that there is this period of up to three months in which a site is not required to become an operating centre, which one hopes would provide the necessary flexibility for the construction industry, I hope that the House will disagree with this Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I am very disappointed that the Government have decided, following discussions with the construction industry, to disagree with this Lords Amendment. This will place an intolerable burden on the industry. I accept that there has been discussion with the industry, but I remind the Minister of State that in Committee there was considerable discussion on Clause 58 of the original Bill and considerable debate about operators and operators' licences.
Reference has been made to the extension of grace for three months. This is welcome as a move in the right direction, but subsequently, on Report, the Government moved a further Amendment which deleted the word "permanent".


This was debated in another place when arguments were put forward by Lord Nugent. The arguments, which had been obvious to us on this side of the House, were reiterated in another place.
As the Minister of State has admitted, the construction industry is continually opening temporary depots in different parts of the country. The Government have recognised the need to allow this situation by allowing the flexibility of three months. After that stage a construction centre or activity of construction becomes an operating centre in the sense of the meaning of this Clause. There was an Amendment in another place asking that this should be extended to 12 months, but it was turned down on Report. The industry had made strong representations that if the three months concession is rigidly adhered to it will seriously handicap the industry because in many cases three months is not enough time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue about the time on this Amendment. The Amendment is quite specific.

Mr. Osborn: I shall not again go over the argument about three or 12 months. I recognise that we are discussing the terms
construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.
This gives the licensing authority some discretion. If there cannot be a time limit the purpose of the Amendment is to give discretion to the licensing authority. A site could then qualify as an operating centre when a major construction, such as the building of a bridge, is taking place—an operation which may last 12 months or two or three years. It would then become an operating centre.
The industry does not disagree with that, but a large number of building operations should be completed within 12 months. I have had some experience of major construction and I have found that it very seldom can be completed in three months. Construction companies have their regional depots where they have maintenance facilities. Surely if the Government are not to make other concessions they can at least give

the licensing authority some discretion. Otherwise, additional costs will be imposed on the industry at a time when the industry can least afford those costs.
I hope that it is not too late for the Government to reconsider this decision and to allow this Amendment to be passed.

Mr. A. P. Costain: In accordance with the tradition of the House I declare an interest in the construction industry. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has said.
This Amendment is reasonable and would not take powers away from the Minister by enabling him to allow discretion for local people. I am extremely worried by the fact that if the Amendment is not accepted it will entail an incredible amount of paper work for the industry. The Government become so concerned about theory that they forget practical application. National contractors run very efficient organisations for looking after their transport bases regionally. Except on small sites they do not expect a transport officer to be responsible. It is better to have a more experienced man at headquarters or branch headquarters than on the sites. On the larger sites it is customary to have experienced maintenance people and an experienced transport organisation with a large fleet.
I plead with the Minister to consider the practical application of this provision. Three months does not mean a thing. Probably when the Minister suggested it he was thinking that the lorries would be working for only there months. Very often transport is engaged in the early part of the operation in carting away rubbish. Then, for several months, that transport is not used because goods are delivered by other transport. Finally, the firm's transport comes in to move goods from the site. Only last Friday I had the privilege of being with the Minister on a site. There he saw a very efficient organisation at work. My car had broken down and the organisation put it right.
There is an experienced organisation on the larger sites, but on the smaller ones, which probably have only one lorry of this sort, it would be a farce to make the general foreman a transport officer and to take the responsibility from the area


manager. That would be ducking responsibility and making an excuse for the man who should be in charge to pass responsibility down the line.
This reasonable Amendment would not take any powers away from the Minister, but it would give discretion to local people to deal with matters in a sensible way. I cannot see why the Government should want to go back to the old idea of "The man in Whitehall knows best". Surely the Minister, even in the closing days of his Ministry, would not want to burden the industry with an intolerable amount of paper work which could never be checked. I am sure that if this Amendment is not accepted an enormous amount of paper work will be involved. Those who want to work according to the rules will do so. Those who want to cheat will find no difficulty in doing so. The Ministry, even with computers, will not be able to keep track of every lorry.
A reasonable concession such as that proposed in the Lords Amendment would make for safety and for efficient organisation. If the Amendment is rejected, nothing will be done to promote greater safety; it will merely mean more red tape and paper work. The 143 tons of waste paper which, we hear today, go from this House will be matched by the amount of waste paper going from builders' offices.

Mr. Bessell: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not rule me out of order if I congratulate the Minister of State upon his new appointment and wish him well. He has served heroically throughout all the stages of the Bill. We wish him every good fortune and happiness in his new post. It is worth noting, in passing, that not one Transport Minister, junior or senior, has survived the Bill since it came up for Second Reading.
The Amendment has troubled me greatly all the way through. I became aware of it when it was considered in another place. The difficulty I have always had with it is that as worded it would place a heavy burden upon the licensing authority. It says:
construction sites shall not be deemed to be operating centres unless a licensing authority considers it expedient for the purposes of Part V of this Act that an operator's licence shall be applied for in respect of vehicles based or centred on that site.

This means that every licensing authority would have to check up on every building site to determine whether it was right to treat it as an operating centre. I think that their Lordships were ill-advised in the wording of the Amendment.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I do not think that would be necessary. A company which is operating a site which will not last for long can apply for exemption. A positive searching activity by the licensing authority is not required. A company can say, "We have a site here. We shall be here for only a short time." As my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech disguised as an intervention.

Mr. Osborn: I am sorry.

Mr. Bessell: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. That point could be overcome by providing that it be a matter of application on the part of builders. However, the Amendment says:
unless a licensing authority considers it expedient ".
That places the onus upon the licensing authority to check up and assess whether a building site should be exempt. The effect would be that licensing authorities, which are very busy, would ignore construction sites.
Although I recognise the difficulty that the wording would create, I agree with the purpose behind the Amendment. To treat a construction site as an operating centre will make nonsense of the intention of the Bill. It would be open to abuse. There would be nothing to prevent builders and contractors from moving their vehicles from site to site, thereby failing to have a true operating centre, although I do not think this would be likely to happen. I cannot believe that any responsible firm of contractors would adopt such a practice, which in the end would be more costly and probably far more complicated to operate than complying with the licensing requirements of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
I have in the past maintained that it would be right to exempt construction sites. If the Lords Amendments had been so worded, it would have been far


more valuable. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) speaks from an intimate knowledge of the industry; he knows the complications and the difficulties involved and the vehicles that can be used. I can visualise that with a major construction—say, a development involving a large number of properties—vehicles would be used during the demolition period. Then there would be a long period when deep piles would be driven and when few vehicles would be used other than those delivering materials for use by the construction engineers; and in the later stages of the construction vehicles would be needed again.
One dangerous effect of the Bill as it stands is that operators of vehicles in the construction industry will decide that their operating centre will be Ludgate, if there happens to be a construction going on there, and then perhaps six months later they will have to decide that their operating centre is to be somewhere in Highgate, because they happen to be doing some construction there.
Yet the wording of the Amendment is difficult. I believe that the case which has been advanced by the Ministry is not met by the concession announced today by the Minister of State, although I admit that it is undoubtedly a valuable concession and one which will be welcome. However, the concession does not go to the heart of the problem and does not overcome the objections we raised earlier and the sensible and serious representations which have been made to hon. Members on both sides by those who are thoroughly familiar with this aspect of road transport and who feel that this provision will place a great burden on them. Indeed, it will place a burden upon the licensing authority, which is bound to have its work considerably increased as a result of the provisions of the Clause.
Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. Although I recognise the difficulties involved in putting into practice the precise wording of the Amendment, on balance I believe that it would be far better to have the Amendment than to allow the Bill to go through in its present form.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I, too, want to congratulate the Minister of State on his translation to his new post in the Department of Health and Social Security. We all wish him well there. He may well think that he will now pass from a year of being bombarded by me on transport matters in Standing Committee and elsewhere. He may be sorry to learn that I shall be bombarding him in his new capacity on the disabled and various other such subjects.
The hon. Gentleman has borne the heat and burden of the day on the Bill. We have disagreed with the Government on major points about the Bill. It has been the hon. Gentleman's duty to try in many cases to defend an indefensible case. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having survived this tremendous ordeal.
In the Amendment the other place has taken account of the problems confronting a vital industry in our economy, the construction industry. It is our concern on this side that we should in no way impede or make more difficult the movements of construction firms when, as a result of contracts taken up, they have to move about the country from one site to another. The Minister reminded us that in Committee the Government made clear that a construction site would not be regarded as an operating centre under the terms of the Bill until three months had passed and that only after that period would licensing requirements in a new licensing authority's area come into force.
We welcomed that concession when it was given, but at a later stage the Government changed by Amendment the definition of operating centre, detracting from the contribution which they had made to the administrative convenience of the construction industry, with the result that the industry now finds that it will not enjoy the benefits which it thought the earlier concession gave.
We are glad to note that the Minister, and his colleagues, no doubt, had discussions with representatives of the construction industry during the summer and he now recognises that problems exist. Nevertheless, it is clear from all we have heard from representatives of the industry that they are still entirely dissatisfied with the terms of the Bill, because their


companies have to work in special conditions which are not properly taken into account.
At various stages of the Bill, we on this side—contrary to what some hon. Members opposite have thought in constantly suggesting that we represent only the road haulage industry—have represented the special problems of different industries, but in the present context of operating centres we are pressing the case of the construction industry, which is the one which finds itself in most difficulty.
Briefly, the reasons are these. The procedure now prescribed in the Bill ignores the methods used by the building industry when it has to move to sites in different parts of the country. At some sites a firm will be there for less than three months; it will carry out the job and then move away. In such circumstances, it will not come within the terms of the definition. At other sites, on the other hand, it will be there for more than three months, though, perhaps, for only a few more months, six months or less than a year.

Mr. Bessell: Or for a few days, perhaps.

Mr. Campbell: Or just for a few more days. This means that the concession in relation to three months which we welcomed in Committee is worthless if a job is to take any time at all in a new licensing authority area.
Moreover, the Bill will impose unnecessary and expensive paper work on the industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has my hon. Friend any idea of the proportion of building sites which will be affected in the manner he suggests?

Mr. Campbell: I understand from representations made to us from the bodies representing the building industry—as the Minister knows, there are two which represent pretty well all the firms working in the industry—this is something which happens all the time. Firms win contracts and have to move, perhaps, 100 miles or 300 miles into a new area, setting up there a base for their work which includes, naturally, the stationing of vehicles while the work is proceeding.

This happens all the time. It is difficult to quantify because it depends on the size of the task, and I have no figures related, say, to the period of a year.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What I should like to know is whether a large proportion of building sites are occupied for a period which would bring them within the terms of the Clause.

Mr. Campbell: I cannot myself give that information. The Government, no doubt, have considered the matter and have in discussion with representatives of the industry; perhaps they can provide that interesting information. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), with his knowledge of these matters, may be able to tell us now.

Mr. Costain: The building of a single house is bound to take more than three months, although it will probably employ an average of only 10 men. To have all the paraphernalia of a transport officer for such a purpose is stupid.

Mr. Campbell: What my hon. Friend has said shows how difficult it is for me, as a private Member, to supply the full information. Even the building of a single house, if it be in an isolated area, will take more than three months, and, if vehicles have to be stationed in the area this will create a situation in which there might have to be an operating centre for the vehicles and licensing for them as well.
I come now to the point in the Lords Amendment regarding the giving of discretion to the licensing authority. The other place makes clear that the licensing authority will have discretion to decide whether licensing is necessary after a period of three months. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) pointed out that the Amendment does not make clear what the application procedure would be and whether an application would have to be put in. For the first three months, no licensing is necessary in any case. I cannot imagine that a situation would result in which the licensing authority had to comb its area to ascertain whether there were any construction sites with vehicles based on them which had been there for more than three months. I am sure that it would be quite simple administratively to make an arrangement


to meet the point which the other place propose by the Amendment.
The far simpler course would be to remove construction sites altogether from the ambit of the definition of operating centre. However, as the Government were not prepared to do that, the Lords Amendment should meet the point by giving the licensing authority a discretion, and I cannot accept that administrative convenience would raise any objection to it.
I imagine that this is the last day on which the Minister of State will be dealing with transport questions. Although he moved to his new post at the end of last week, we are very glad that he is here today dealing with the Bill. His presence illustrates what I said at the beginning of my speech: he has become indispensable to the Government in dealing with the Transport Bill. I congratulate him on that, but I commiserate with him also because he has had to try to defend so many points in the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it expedient that we come to the Amendment, which deals with the question of expediency.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I hope, therefore, that, on his last day in dealing with transport matters, the Minister of State will make a major contribution to our country's economy by changing his mind and persuading his right hon. Friend to accept the excellent proposal made in the Lords Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: Naturally, I am grateful for the kind remarks which have been made, or which, I am sure, were intended to be kind. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) certainly gave me a hint about what to say to my children when they ask, as they frequently do, "What did you do, Daddy, on the great Transport Bill of 1968?". I can say that I survived—just, because I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not take up my new duties until 1st November.
Hon. Members have made rather heavy weather of the Amendment. We are talking about the definition of an operating centre in relation to the whole quality licensing system. The Bill states:

'operating centre' means, in relation to any vehicles, the base or centre from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used".
As I was saying on the last occasion, I think that all hon. Members are generally in favour of the quality licensing system and want it to be universally applicable. If it is projected to raise the standard of vehicle maintenance and safety, it must be made universally applicable. There must, therefore, be a framework for that purpose.
For that purpose, we have selected the unit of the operating centre as the basis on which the applicant gets the licence, as the basis for the licensing authority's scrutiny and as the basis for the appointment of the transport manager. We are talking about what should be the proper definition of the operating centre, the important unit on the basis of which the applicant, a man operating road transport, applies to the licensing authority. It is the base or centre
from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used".
It must be admitted that that is the right basis. If one agrees with the concept of the operating centre, that is the proper interpretation of it. It will be for the licensing authorities to consider that interpretation and its application to any case in the light of the question: Is this or is it not, the operating centre in the sense that it is the place from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used?
In relation to that, I have mentioned the two important concessions—they are not new; they have evolved during the course of our discussions—which, I think, meet the objections of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I refer, first, to the discretion of the licensing authority concerning the appointment of the transport manager. I realise that the construction industry might be worried about this in regard to the possible multiplication of operating centres. That is precisely the sort of case which one had in mind in saying that the licensing authority should have discretion concerning the man at some central point who may be perfectly good at supervising a number of centres.
Therefore, by Clause 65(3), the licensing authority can, in his discretion, determine that an applicant need not


appoint one transport manager for each operating centre. He may be allowed to have a transport manager who supervises a number of operating centres. That may prove to be an important point for the construction industry.
The other point which I have mentioned earlier is the discretion about the three months. If there are considerable movement and changes which imply as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) will appreciate, that the bases are not those from which the vehicles are normally used, the interpretation in the Bill would not apply because one could not say that the place in question was the base or centre
from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used ".
In any event, there is the three-month discretion whereby vehicles may be operating from a site and a licence is not required.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The situation is by no means clear to us in the House or to the construction industry. It is difficult for me to appreciate it at this particular time. If a construction company operated a site 300 miles away and it said to the licensing authority at its base, "We normally use our vehicles from this base", could the licensing authority waive what appears to be the very rigid definition in the Bill? If that is what the Minister is saying, it would go a long way to clarify the position. But how is this clarification to be given to the construction industry after we have finished with the problem in the House today?

Mr. Swingler: We shall, of course, have to continue, as necessary, discussions with the construction industry on this point. I want to make clear, however, to the hon. Member and to the construction industry that it is all wrapped up in the answer to the question: Is this the base or centre from which the vehicles are, or are intended to be, normally used? That should be the test. That is our definition of the operating centre.
We do not wish to include the exemption. That is why I have moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment. Quite clearly, the licensing authority will have to judge on that basis using what-

ever discretionary powers have been granted to him by Parliament in the course of the Bill. That is the crucial point.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister go a little further? The problem for the construction industry is the use of the words "normally used". "Normally maintained" would be understandable. Does not the Minister appreciate that when individual houses are being built, the vehicles would be normally used at the site but not normally maintained there. If the words "normally maintained" were used, they would make a great difference.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member will appreciate that our precise concern is the responsibility for vehicle efficiency and safety and the proper supervision of vehicles. Therefore, if vehicles are sent away for any considerable time from the place where they are normally stationed or sited and they do not constantly return to that base, it is no good arguing that they are being properly supervised and serviced at that base. That is why the licensing authority will, therefore, have to consider the proper application of the definition. It depends, of course, on the period for which vehicles may be away from the place which might be their normal place.
The whole aim of the quality licensing system is to ensure constant and proper supervision of vehicle efficiency and safety and that somebody is responsible for the maintenance and servicing of those vehicles. That is solely what we are concerned with. That is why I hope that hon. Members will accept our definition and leave it to the discretion of licensing authorities to apply it in the proper way.

Mr. Bessell: I realise that the Minister is trying to help us. If, however, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said, a number of houses were being built in different parts of the country, and if, for that reason, a vehicle was away from its normal base, which would presumably be a builder's yard, for a lengthy period, would not the transport manager, whoever he might be or wherever he might be based, have the same degree of responsibility to make sure under the terms of the Bill that the vehicle was properly maintained?

Mr. Swingler: That is exactly why we give this discretion to the licensing authorities. I said earlier concerning the discretionary power for licensing authorities under Clause 65(3) that if those authorities are satisfied about the safety and efficient management, they can use their discretion and say that the transport manager 100 or 200 miles away can do the job. That is a matter for the licensing authorities to judge.
Likewise, it would be a matter for the licensing authorities, in a practical, commonsense way, to judge whether the base was or was not the base from which the vehicles normally operated. They must, of course, take into account the fluctuations in the construction industry, as well as in other industries, in arriving at a sensible answer to that question. That is why we wish this definition to stand, because it is a practical, commonsense definition. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I know little about the construction industry, but the more I have listened to the debate the more confused I have become. It seems to me, as a lawyer, that the difficulty will arise over the word "normally". What is "normal"? If it is normal to use a vehicle from a particular place for a very short period, is it normal to use it somewhere else for the next period—three months, three weeks or three days?
I can foresee a great deal of dispute about the Clause, and I do not know that we have had a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. David Webster: I would add my congratulations to the Minister of State on his removal from the Ministry of Transport, and also point out that since the Bill began—it seems a very long time ago—we have seen all three Ministers disposed of and three new ones come in. I hope it is three and not four. However, we congratulate the Minister of State and wish him success. [Interruption.] I never can hear the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) when he speaks while sitting down. I thank the Minister for the three months' leeway that we wrung out of him during the Committee stage of the Bill. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Ham, North would stop

talking, he might give himself a chance to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who has a great deal of practical experience in this subject, has said that this is not enough. I agree with him. I am sure that he could well have given illustrations of how much costs in the hon. Gentleman's new Ministry will increase as a result of his rather rigid view on the Amendment. The Minister has said that we are making heavy weather of this and he also asked whether we were in favour of quality control. We are definitely in favour of quality control and anything of this nature to ensure safety of operation of commercial vehicles, and so is the industry.
Both the Minister and I have had consultations with the industry, and I am sure that our experience has been common, that the industry agrees with the need for this but asks on every occasion to be given as much practical help as possible in its operation. This is why we are pressing the Lords Amendment. We think that it will not in any way detract from the safety and quality control that is necessary, but will make operations more practical and more flexible.
When a great Department of State gets the bit between its teeth, the great danger is that it will start drafting regulations and everything will become too rigid, and the unfortunate man on the site who has the least chance of anybody to make representations on the subject, is completely left out in the cold. I should have thought that the House would have been wise to heed the practical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who, with a lifetime of experience in the industry, knows the problem. I should also have thought that our way of giving discretion to the licensing authority was the better method.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the first three months of an operation is generally the time when spoil is being removed and there are a lot of vehicles on the site. Then comes the period when the actual construction work is being done, and after that extra bits and pieces are brought into the finished building and then again one needs many more vehicles.
4.45 p.m.
I should have thought it clear that the Lords Amendment is more flexible, takes nothing away from the safety that is required and also takes away any taint that this is simply a matter of considering the convenience of administrators. We sometimes have to consider the convenience of those who build houses. We should on every occasion prevent any risk of bureaucratic nonsense, but I think there will be plenty of bureaucratic non-

sense under the Bill as it stands in this part if we do not accept the Lords Amendment. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to insist in the Division Lobby that the Lords Amendment remains in the Bill.

Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 203.

Division No. 302.]
AYES
[4.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Albu, Austen
Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salord, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John
Kelley, Richard


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Ashley, Jack
Ensor, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Fredrick (Nwton)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fernyhough, E.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnes, Michael
Finch, Harold
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Barnett, Joel
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bence, Cyril
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lipton, Marcus


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blackburn, F.
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fowler, Gerry
McBride, Neil


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacDermot, Niall


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Boston, Terence
Gardner, Tony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Boyden, James
Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brooks, Edwin
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mapp, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce


Chapman, Donald
Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hilton, W. S.
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cronin, John
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Horner, John
Moyle, Roland


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Delargy, Hugh
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Edmund
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dempsey, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, Walter


Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, George (Goole)
Paget, R. T.


Dickens, James
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras.S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles




Park, Trevor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace, George


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Pavitt, Laurence
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Weitzman, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Slater, Joseph
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, William (Rugby)
Snow, Julian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rankin, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rees, Merlyn
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Swingler, Stephen
Winnick, David


Robertson, John (Pasley)
Symonds, J. B.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Taverne, Dick
Woof, Robert


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Wyatt, Woodrow


Roebuck, Roy
Thornton, Ernest
Yates, Victor


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tinn, James



Rose, Paul
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. John McCann and


Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, W. H.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Balniel, Lord
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David…
McMaster, Stanley


Batsord, Brian
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tuton
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glyn, Sir Richard
Marten, Neil


Bessell, Peter
Goodhart, Phillip
Maude, Angus


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Blaker, Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector


Brewis, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hal-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Mott-Radc'yffe, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carlise, Mark
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Cordle, John
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Prior, J M. L.


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dance, James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Doughty, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Silvester, Frederick


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith







Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Waddington, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Teeling, Sir William
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Temple, John M.
Weatherill, Bernard



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Tilney, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Jasper More.

Clause 95

PERMITTED DRIVING TIME AND PERIODS OF DUTY

Lords Amendment No. 102: In page 126, line 15, at end insert:
Provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week.

Read a Second time.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with my Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment, in page 129, line 30, at end insert:
'either generally or with such exceptions as may be specified in the order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That would be in order.

Mr. Marsh: It is an easy thing to happen, but I believe that there was probably some misunderstanding of the effect of their Amendment among their Lordships. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be to allow a driver to be at the wheel for 11 hours a day when the first regulations came into operation to make the standard driving time 10 hours and when, with the introduction of the second set of regulations, the period would be reduced to nine hours, allowing 10 hours on two days a week.
I do not think that this could have been the intention of the Lords, because, under the first regulations, the Lords Amendment would actually increase the permissible driving time allowed under the 1960 Act, because most drivers have a certain amount of work to do in addition to their driving time.
Another factor is that we have not as yet even got a target date for the introduction of the second set of regulations. It seems undesirable to commit ourselves

now in relation to changes on an unspecified date in future before we have had a chance to see how the first reductions have worked out and before we have had a chance to consult management and men on the second set of regulations.

Mr. Bessell: I heard the debate on this point in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman is echoing the reply given there by his noble Friend. But I have never understood their argument and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear. If the present regulation is for 11 hours and this is to be reduced to 10, and the Lords state that they would wish it to be 11 hours on two days a week only, I do not see how this can be increasing the present number of permitted hours. If the right hon. Gentleman would explain, I would be grateful.

Mr. Marsh: Under the 1960 Act, the total amount of time which can be spent on any day in driving and on other work in connection with the vehicle or its load shall not exceed 11 hours. In practice, a driver always has some other work to do on the vehicle, even if it be only to check it before a journey to ensure that it is safe.
This means that even a long-distance trunk driver not concerned with loading or unloading can seldom achieve 11 hours driving at present because the total limit of 11 hours also includes work in connection with the vehicle. Allowing for the fact that in many cases the men have to do something in addition to driving, the cumulative effect of the Amendment would be to produce a situation where the total amount of time would be higher than what is legal at present.
I make no criticism of their Lordships. As I myself have learnt, it is difficult for an Opposition to produce Amendments. But if we accept this Amendment, which is quite clear, we shall have a situation where the total amount of time allowed


is higher than the permitted time at present.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: Is that important? The Lords Amendment seeks to provide a little more flexibility. It does not seek to extract additional work from the driver. It is designed to make his life a little easier and a little more flexible on two days a week.

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate the point and I shall come to it in a moment. That is why I thought that it would be to the advantage of the House to take the two Amendments together.
I do not think that it was intended to produce a situation in which the amount of time permitted in this work might be greater than under the present law. It seems undesirable to commit ourselves at this stage to a particular course of action before we have had an opportunity to see how the first stage works and to have consultations for the second stage with the men and management in the industry.
Having said that, given that it is desirable to see how things work out and to be able to discuss them in the light of experience, I think that the Bill is too inflexible to enable us to have meaningful discussions. That is why the Government Amendment offers an alternative. It would permit the Minister to allow, if necessary, an additional one hour's driving on two days a week when the limit is reduced to nine hours. There would have to be full consultations on both sides before that occurs and before any Order is laid, and the Order itself would be subject to the affirmative Resolution.
We are moving into a new situation, but in many respects it is a situation in which the rules are applied much more vigorously on the Continent than in this country. As we are moving into this unknown area, it makes sense not to commit ourselves at this stage, but to ensure that provision exists, when we know more about it and when we have had an opportunity to discuss it, to produce the change in the situation which is felt necessary at the time. The safeguards are the right to consult before any Order is laid and the affirmative

procedure which would give the House a further opportunity for discussion.
For those reasons I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and I shall subsequently ask hon. Members to agree to the Government Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has spoken with his usual sweet reasonableness, but his argument has not immediately satisfied us. He said that because we were to have a two-stage operation, he had a degree of flexibility, but it is fair to point out that these new rules were achieved only after the most fearless probing and argument by my hon. Friends. In Committee, we hammered hard day and night in the face of the fiercest opposition from the Minister who said that it was impracticable to have two stages, that it was not sense and that we were not living in reality. However, we managed to persuade him to make these reductions in drivers' hours in two stages and now he says that because it is a two-stage operation, he is making a minor concession.
We were proved correct in Committee when we pressed for the introduction of a two-stage operation. The Minister has now learned the sense of that, and I hope that in the circumstances he will listen with care and attention to our arguments as we try to persuade him to agree with their Lordships.
Reports of committees on carrier licensing, which the Minister will have carefully studied and which will have been noted by every Member interested in road haulage affairs, show that, unfortunately, there was widespread evasion of the present rules. The Minister and every hon. Member knows that wayward and unscrupulous drivers and employers evaded the present limits. But, with the introduction of the tachograph, there has been a change in the situation which will make it much easier to enforce the existing regulations. In those circumstances, we do not compare like with like when we compare 11 hours under the old regulations with 11 hours which their Lordships propose for two days in the week.
I am sorry to take this attitude when the Minister has made some concession to us, but it must not be forgotten that we are simply asking for a little flexibility in circumstances which have been-


brought about by the changes in the Bill which will impose a substantial burden on employers, on the industry generally and on other important industries like agriculture.
We have made progress with the Bill. We are not in any way seeking to add to the total number of driving hours. That is not our intention. All we are suggesting is that for two days a week drivers should be able to drive a little more than the limit and, therefore, drive less in consequence for the rest of the week within the total of 60 hours in the week.
This is a view which is held not only by their Lordships or my hon. Friends. It has been supported by the T.R.T.A. and, I understand, by the C.B.I. In another place the Government were asked what was the attitude of the Minister's Transport Consultative Committee, but that question was never answered and I hope that today the Minister will tell us what that Committee's attitude is.
I remind the Minister that the Bill is a major step in reduction of hours. The introduction of a 60-hour week will mean a substantial increase in costs for a number of employers. The Bill also introduces a compulsory day off for the drivers of public service vehicles—and I have several hon. Friends with wide experience of operating public service companies—and we are reducing daily hours from 11 to 10. More important, we have the new factor of additional enforcement. In these circumstances, it is very important that there should be some justification of the Minister's attitude.
In Committee, the Minister himself explained how significant the general reduction in hours would be. He said:
If one were to introduce the Bill as it stands without any quid pro quo in terms of productivity, the cost could be as high as £25 million, or possibly even more, per year ". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th April, 1968; c. 2911.]
I think that that was an under-estimate, but it gives some idea of how much cash and additional manpower will be involved. There have been many other estimates. The Association of Chambers of Commerce said that municipal transport undertakings would have to find an additional 15 per cent, staff.
What we are saying is that we are taking a big step which will have a signifi-

cant effect on transport, on traders and on agriculture and all other industries, and that in those circumstances it is vital to have as much flexibility as possible. We ask for only unlimited flexibility.
One argument about which we have not heard a great deal, but which supports our case, relates to the Common Market, in which I have a special interest. The Common Market Commission is considering rules to reduce drivers' hours. Although nothing is definite, it is proposing to bring in new arrangements. One of the proposals is that on two days a week drivers will be allowed to work a longer day, not longer by one hour but by two. I understand that the Commission is thinking in terms of a 13 hour day per week, but with 15 hours on two days a week.
Although this has not been approved, the important thing is that it will probably be, and that there will be this flexibility on the Continent. It is worth bearing in mind that we shall probably be having a greater trade relationship with the Continent, and we should not be at any trading disadvantage through flexibility of hours.

Mr. Marsh: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be so partial in choosing his facts. Would he also accept that the E.E.C. regulations are aiming at cutting driving hours down to eight a day?

Mr. Taylor: I was coming to that. I hope that the Minister will try to keep this debate a serious one, instead of scoring silly points. He should realise that this, and other provisions will cause a great deal of inconvenience and hardship to business, commerce and agriculture.
People are working very hard, and suffering, as a result of the activities of the Government. I hope that he will look at this seriously and appreciate the real problems. I and my hon. Friends are constantly being approached by constituents and firms, telling us about their problems as a result of this Bill. We should stop trying to score silly little points and face up to the real problems.

Mr. Marsh: I am making a perfectly serious point, following what the hon. Member has been saying. He has quoted what the European Economic Community intends to do. One of the things


that it intends, as part of that package, is a reduction in driving hours, which I would not think would be acceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Taylor: What the Minister has not mentioned, also, is that these are only proposals, and we have no guarantee that they will come into effect in this particular form. One of the basic points is that there must be this degree of flexibility. It may never happen, but the point is that sensible people in Europe are sitting round a table and talking about this, saying that one of the fundamental points in any package must be this degree of flexibility.
I would like to put to the Minister the kind of things which might happen without this flexibility. If a driver finds, on one or two days a week, that he cannot do a job, at normal speeds, in less than 11 hours, what is he to do? The danger is that rather than stop short of his destination, and stay overnight, then do the extra bit the next day, he might simply speed up journey times. If we are concerned with road safety, and with reducing the hours for safety reasons, I suggest that to avoid flexibility with the result that a man drives a bit faster is wrong.
What will be the result of not making provision for the longer journey? It will be that to carry the same volume of work, employers will be forced to employ additional staff. One estimate of the results of the Bill is 15 per cent. I am not saying that this degree of flexibility will make anything like this difference. If one deprives employers of the flexibility they need to take on the extra job, the longer journey in the week, there is a danger of them recruiting less skilled men to fill the gap.
If we are to have more drivers, these men will be less skilled. There is already a shortage of staff—one has only to look at the frightening figures on pages 36 and 37 of the Prices and Incomes Board's Report on productivity in the bus industry about operators working with over 10 per cent. staff shortage. Without this degree of flexibility, their problems will be greatly increased. Operating municipal transport undertakings, or passenger service vehicles of any kind, at this time is a nightmare because of staff shortages. The Government will not help if they in-

sist on going ahead with regulations which which do not allow this degree of flexibility.
5.15 p.m.
In another place it was said that driving 11 hours at the wheel was a very long time indeed—the Minister also said so in Committee. He said that he would bear the fatigue factor in mind. We were not suggesting that it was a reasonable thing to ask anyone to drive 11 hours in a day. I was interested to read the White Paper, Road Safety—A Fresh Approach, published two or three years ago. It was an interesting document, and one of the first things that the Minister will have done in coming to his Ministry is to have read this significant and important document. It opened by saying that in planning road safety measures, one must start from the facts and it says, rather optimistically, that the Government will be as clear-headed and scientific in their approach as they can be.
I do not think at this stage that we can come to any decision as to precisely how clear-headed the Government can be in their approach. I hope that they will approach this point scientifically. Where is the research to justify the Minister in saying that the Government can judge safety on the basis of 11 hours as opposed to 10 hours? In Committee on 30th April, the Minister said:
There has been a great deal of research.…"—
this was when we were discussing the question of drivers hours—
The Road Research Laboratory has done a great deal of work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th April, 1968; c. 2902.]
There were questions in another place about this. Lord Teviot, who has done a great deal of work on this particular matter, who spent seven weeks driving during the Recess and covered 7,000 miles, challenged this and asked where was all this work, all the evidence about fatigue? He quoted from the 1967 Report of the Road Research Laboratory, which said:
Driving fatigue also needs attention.
My own inquiries and those made by their Lordships have shown that on this subject of the relationship between fatigue and road accidents, there does not appear to have been a great deal of original work done by the Road Research


Laboratory. I have looked carefully through all available publications to find evidence. There was an article in Ergonomics, in 1961, which said that there was no real evidence on the subject. A good bit of research has been done by the Medical Research Council, and this was referred to in another place.
Dr. Brown, of the Applied Psychology Unit at Cambridge, did some real investigation into this aspect of the problem. Bearing in mind the question of 11 hours as opposed to 10, and how this can be related to fatigue and road safety, he said that in his opinion reserve mental capacity was greater and the responding time shorter after a prolonged period of driving than at the beginning. Therefore, when considering the question whether it should be 11 hours or 10 hours we have this carefully documented evidence.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this doctor is a long or short distance driver, as well as a university professor?

Mr. Taylor: We had this kind of interruption throughout the Committee stage from the hon. Gentleman. This is a very serious subject and I wish that I could impress him with it. If he had to face the kind of problems which face transport undertakers and lorry drivers and others he would appreciate this. [Interruption.] This man is accepted in his profession and generally, I think even by the Government, as being someone with real knowledge and experience of these matters, someone who has done a great deal of original research, who has checked up on many accidents and collected a great deal of statistics. His evidence on accidents is that the reserve mental capacity is greater and the responding time shorter after a prolonged period of driving than is the case at the beginning.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I should like to try to take the emotional content out of the serious proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). To say that the evidence and opinion of the gentleman whom he has mentioned is such that he draws a conclusion which supports his case is not adequate. What we require when discussing the hours which men work and

fatigue is the nature of the evidence and the research to see whether it is authentic evidence on which we can base a conclusion.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He approaches this question seriously, as he always did in Committee. I hope that some of his hon. Friends will learn a lesson from his courtesy and attention. I can refer the hon. Gentleman to the report. He will find that it is a carefully documented work. What I am saying to the Government is that if they have evidence which shows the reverse, let us have it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we asked for this in Committee and we did not get it. It was asked for on Report in another place, and it was not given. Here is a detailed report which has been made by Dr. Brown, and copies of it are available through the Medical Research Council.
However, that is not the only study. Dr. Hunt of the Department of Human Physiology studied this subject. He said that the figures which he had indicated that the inexperienced driver was the least safe and that in, I believe, 900 accidents which he investigated the casual driver, the person who drove part-time, was responsible for about 50 per cent. of them. I have no wish to prove any great point or to say that I am right and everyone else is wrong, but serious medical opinion has given us certain facts and if the Minister has any other evidence, let us hear it.
It is obvious that if someone drives for 20 hours and is generally shattered, he will not be fit to drive any further. This is something which everyone would accept. But what we are considering is whether 10 hours or 11 hours is the maximum amount of driving which any person should be permitted to do. On the evidence available, there seems to be no case for saying that to provide for 11 hours' driving on only two days a week would reduce road safety standards. The evidence which is available shows that the danger of accidents arises at the beginning of a driving period, and that a much greater danger is having a large number of inexperienced drivers on the road. My fear is that if we do not allow for flexibility there will be a need, in the absence of major productivity steps forward, for more drivers and the


worst possible service we could do to the cause of road safety would be to allow on the roads extra drivers who do not have the experience of many long-distance drivers.
Although sometimes we complain about long-distance lorry drivers when they delay us on narrow roads, it is generally accepted that they are some of the finest men in the country, are very safe drivers, approach their jobs responsibly and have a wealth of experience. By introducing inflexible rules there is a danger that we might cause to be brought on the roads more drivers who do not have this experience and the same vision.
The Minister said that he has moved towards us. What he has done is to provide that when the second reduction from 10 to nine hours takes place there will be the possibility of flexibility. Therefore, what the Minister is saying is that, while there is a case for flexibility when there is a reduction from 10 to nine hours, there is no case for flexibility when making a reduction from 11 to 10 hours. He is saying that in his opinion it is dangerous, wrong and against the national interest for any person to drive more than 10 hours in any day.
Where is the evidence for that? Where is all the research to which the Minister referred in Committee by the Road Research Laboratory which proves this narrow point? I believe that there is none. Time and again in Committee we put forward solid arguments which were turned down in a very offhand way by the Minister. So often, after consultation, he said, "I am sorry; I was wrong and you were right", and therefore Amendments were put forward. Unfortunately, on this occasion, we do not have the same opportunity. There is no time for the Minister to consult his colleagues and to think again. Unfortunately, this is the end of the road.
I appeal to the Minister to have second thoughts. If he wants this provision, let him at least allow for flexibility. He should consult those who are responsible for running our great industries. He should consult those who are employed in agriculture, engineering, and so on. If he does, he will find that the unanimous opinion is that flexibility is desirable. Jobs can arise which call for

an extra bit of driving and more flexibility. The Minister will be doing a great disservice if he does not make this concession.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman admit that, rightly or wrongly, what he is arguing for is longer hours? He considers that 60 hours driving a week is not sufficient. Such hours are unknown in any other industry.

Mr. Taylor: I am very upset when, after doing my best to explain a point in detail, I find that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate it. I would waste the time of the House if I were to go over the argument again. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill allows for 60 hours driving and that I am suggesting that drivers should drive for a longer period. I have explained at least twice that that is not what we are suggesting at all; far from it. Perhaps, instead of continuously interrupting hon. Members on this side who put forward serious points, the hon. Gentleman would listen and try to comprehend.
We are not saying that we want to increase drivers' hours to 61, 62, 63, 64 or 65 hours a week. We say, "You can keep your 60." What we say is that the Government should allow a little flexibility. Provide for eleven hours on two days a week which would have the result of fewer hours on other days. I assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that we do not wish to increase the figure of 60 hours. We accept that figure, and all we ask for is flexibility. I am aware that when we appeal for flexibility the last person we should look to for support and encouragement is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, because he has not shown a great deal of flexibility in our discussions.
I have been led astray by the helpful and constructive intervention of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and by the less helpful interventions of hon. Members who consistently cause trouble and difficulty in Committee. I appeal to the Minister to think again. This is a good case. If the Minister studies this question more carefully and consults the interests who are aware of these problems and who have to live with them, he may think again, and I appeal to him to do so.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is unusual for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in a speech in which there was not a comma or full stop, to say a few nice words about the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. He indulged in a piece of wishful thinking that, since his argument was not very convincing, he might appeal to my better nature.
The answer to this problem ought to be simple; it should be concerned with one thing only and that is the working conditions of the men in the industry. If the working conditions are right then a large contribution is made to the efficiency of the industry, which is what the hon. Member for Cathcart is concerned with, and I do not disagree with him on this score.
It is a weak argument to introduce so belatedly that what is required is not an increase in the hours but something which sounds highly democratic—flexibility. This sounds rather like the word "principle". When an hon. Member on either side of the House says, "I want to be quite frank", the word "principle" comes into question. There are certain abstract words which are highly dangerous, since there are innocent people who are highly receptive to the sounds of words, and the word "flexibility" is a nice sounding word.
Let me tell the House what was said to me by one employer at the beginning of the discussions on workers' hours. It is time it was said, since it is right, if the men and the conditions of the men are uppermost in our minds, that the truth shall come out about some thinking which is not healthy. What I am about to say does not affect the feeling among the majority of the good employers I have met; certainly it does not meet with the general thinking in the House, but it is a state of mind of which we must be wary.
This employer, representing a large undertaking, urged on me the need not to interfere with the present driving hours. I said to him, "After 30 years when the conditions of these men have not been altered, is it not right that the Government, not only in the interests of the men but in the interests of safety and of the industry, shall seek to bring those conditions into line with those enjoyed by other sections of the working

population for the last three decades? "The answer from that employer was," If the hours of a long-distance lorry driver are reduced, what will he do when he is away from home? He will just spend his time on beer and women." My answer to that was, "And what do you do with your time after nine hours?"

Mr. Thomas Steele: Whisky and women!

Mr. Leadbitter: We must have, as the hon. Member has just mentioned, a differential here, and possibly whisky and women is a reasonable differential.
How sad that a responsible employer had to mouth that horrible thought to me. The vast majority of people, whatever their so-called station in life, are honest, decent-living people, and no one with a state of mind such as I have described can initiate conditions of work, business or commerce.
The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke of the research work which led him to believe quite sincerely that after long hours of working a man is better able to deal with safety margins than at the beginning of his working day. I am afraid that the academic gentleman who did his homework for him would not apply the same rule to himself. It is accepted in the academic field that after a period the brain loses its power, and that there is a norm beyond which in terms of effort put into research work, thinking or study such an exercise is not economic. In other words, the longer one works the more tired one gets, and that applies to everybody. The longer one works in bad conditions so much the more tired one gets.
The hon. Member for Cathcart and myself have in common the need to consider completely and irrefutably the safety of people who are not on vehicles, the pedestrians who are going about their normal daily lives, shopping and taking their families out. I put it to the hon. Member that it is more than likely that in congested towns, or where the traffic is heavy, if a man has been behind the wheel of a large articulated vehicle for a long period, his reflex actions will be that little bit slower, and that a serious accident is more likely to take place in those conditions than if the driver were working only the number of hours which


are nowadays accepted as reasonable. The hon. Member can draw his own conclusions from that.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Did the hon. Gentleman not take my hon. Friend's point that there might be even greater danger if that driver towards the end of the day realises that he is nearing the end of his hours and starts to speed-thereby putting pedestrians in far greater danger?

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke in terms of the importance of the experienced driver. It is not an argument to apply to an experienced driver that he will so misuse his position as to break the law. The law about speeding is there for everyone. I accept far more the argument that an experienced driver who knows what he is in control of in terms of weight, size and speed, will not be inclined to break the law in any way.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a danger that, if we do not accept the flexibilities of this Amendment, employers may be forced to employ more drivers who are less experienced? Would it not be better to allow this flexibility and allow the experienced men to finish the job?

Mr. Leadbitter: No. Unfortunately the hon. Member for Cathcart has addressed himself to the Clause to which the Lords Amendment refers. If he will turn to subsection (10) of Clause 95 he will find that in certain conditions, which are outlined quite clearly, under the Clause which he seeks to amend the vehicles will be exempt. In other words, Regulations can be made either by the Traffic Commissioners or by the Minister in order to meet difficulties of the kind that the hon. Member has described, and in special circumstances the provisions of Clause 95(1) can be modified to meet that point.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What does the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) suppose that the experienced driver will do when he is within 30 miles of his home and his time is running out? Will he speed up, will he exceed his time in getting home or will he stay 30 miles from home?

Mr. Leadbitter: I cannot understand a question like that. The hon. Member knows that he is putting a hypothetical problem. What does he think a driver does now when he is 30 miles from home?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Even if 11 hours were the period, as the Opposition suggest, he could still be over his time. What would he do then?

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Cathcart, in trying to make the case for exemptions, tried to underpin the main problems which can arise in a complex transport industry, in which it is admitted that some flexibility is needed —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I have not finished. I refer to flexibility that can be controlled by Regulations. This is done in Clause 95(10). It is not unreasonable at this late stage to quote the exact wording:
For the purpose of enabling vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies to be used in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need, the Minister may by regulatins—
'(a) create exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (6)…",
and we are dealing with subsection (1).
It is clear not only that the Minister has the power but that the Traffic Commissioners or the licensing authority will have power to provide the kind of flexibility needed in the special cases which the hon. Member described. That is the right way to deal with flexibility, and not by means of an open-ended agreement under which people could do what they liked, when they liked and for whatever purpose they liked.
It is a pity that we have spent so much time on this argument when we knew what the Minister was trying to do. We knew that he had broken down the rigidity of the original proposals to meet the point which has been made by the hon. Member. More than that, he gave us an undertaking that consultations would take place so that these special needs would be be taken into account. I should have thought that that was understood. Whatever else is said, the "safety lock" in subsection (10) is a better way to deal with the required flexibility than having no Regulations at all so that the only way to help the industry would be to increase the number


of hours which a man might work on any two days.
It is a little presumptuous for any hon. Member to try to write into legislation the exact hours which might be needed for flexibility, when it is impossible, in all these thousands of undertakings, for one individual to understand individual needs. The only way that it can be done is by Regulations of this kind.
Hon. Members opposite time and again display a presumption of monopoly of business thought—

Mr. Gower: We are not far apart on this. But the hon. Member's argument is, surely, leading irresistibly to the situation that there will be so many of these instances of unusual needs—

Mr. Leadbitter: No.

Mr. Gower: But the hon. Gentleman just said that this is the sort of industry in which there will be many instances of unusual need, and he suggested that all these varied instances should be met by some special application to the Traffic Commissions. How long would that take? It would create an enormous amount of work.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member may have felt that he had a point, but if I were the manager of a transport undertaking, I would rather apply to the Traffic Commissioners or the licensing authority for an exemption on premises which could be clearly understood between us than have someone in this House say that my problems could be solved by allowing an extra hour's driving on two days a week. I would not want that kind of Amendment by an M.P., whoever was silly enough to do it, telling me how to "suck eggs". The hon. Member cannot do it.
If he thought that we had chewed this up enough now and agreed that putting on one hour for two days in any week would not solve the problem, if he accepted that a transport manager would rather have the alternative which I described, he would say to his hon. Friends, "Let us not divide on this. We have been caught out. Our argument was very silly". At least we on this side have put forward a common sense case for

the men, for the industry—although it has spent a good deal of money fighting us—and, in the end, for what is more important, the transport efficiency of the country, not only economically but socially and on the basis of environmental factors which involve safety.
If the argument is accepted, the answer should be, "Let us shut up, not divide and get on with the next Amendment".

Sir R. Cary: In a vigorous speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) quoted from a number of statistical tables on fatigue, which were later commented on by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). One of my disadvantages in not being a member of the hardworking and overworked Committee which considered the Bill is that these statistical tables are not available to me, and I have little refined knowledge in that direction. My own responsibility towards drivers, as hon. Members will understand, concerns drivers of public service passenger vehicles. The Regulations concerning them are so strict and so closely denned that they are not relevant to our discussion now except in the general realm of public safety. For years, I have had the privilege to preside over many functions concerned with safe driving awards and giving awards to public service drivers.
But, in the dimension of long-distance vehicles, which is in the centre of our thoughts today, as I tried to point out in an interruption in the Minister's speech, we are not far apart. It is a matter of procedures and legislation. In a reasonable Amendment, their Lordships propose to write in something additional. That is the orthodox Parliamentary procedure. The Minister, in his wisdom, thinks that there is a better way. The Minister does not want to tamper with the structure of the Bill. Instead, he offers an Amendment. We wish to change the structure of the Bill to make it certain, in writing, that we have the flexibility which we seek. The Minister wishes to take discretionary powers to himself to make an Order. I ask him to reflect. Discretionary powers conferred on a Minister are not a protection for Parliament because if they fall into the wrong hands, they can frustrate our intentions. If I were to be completely impartial, uninfluenced by party considerations, I should prefer the method


of changing the Bill and not that of giving the Minister discretionary powers. Under the latter proposal, the Minister would be free to decide whether he should lay an Order, and if he were not prepared to do so, there would be no such Order.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The only generous and sensible comment by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was that the Minister had presented his case with sweet reasonableness. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cathcart did not emulate him, and the House had to listen to a long-winded platitudinous speech which reminded me of the remark of an eminent man that empty barrels make the most sound.
The hon. Member claimed all the laurels for a great stand made by the Opposition in Committee. I attended that Committee assiduously, but I remember no great stand being made. With great gusto he quoted T.R.T.A. and C.B.I., as well as the opinion of a professor who was said to have great knowledge of the working of transport. But he did not quote the opinion of my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, who, unlike his university professor, who has never driven a commercial vehicle in his life—as is the case with many other people who are always on the outside looking in at other people working, and drawing the rake off—know what makes these men tick.
The union which I represent in the House knows how arduous is the job of managing transport in this country. A period of 60 hours and much less than 60 hours will induce fatigue, inefficiency and even accidents involving loss of life. Hon. Members opposite make a mistake, because they do not understand these things. Men grow tired not at the beginning of a driving period but at the end of the day.
I have been living among these people for almost 60 years. I have had the same kind of experience with local authorities as that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I, too, have had the honour of presenting certificates to ambulance drivers, civil defence workers and corporation workers for devotion to duty. These honours are not accorded lightly. They are accorded because people have devoted themselves

to duty and have been mindful of their responsibilities. I have known men who have had the misfortune to kill children in accidents. They have never again been a shadow of their former selves. The men who undertake these responsibilities day in and day out throughout their lives are legion. We have heard a thoroughly irresponsible speech from the hon. Member showing no understanding of the human problems involved.

Mr. Gower: That is not the argument. We have been told that we can do these things, provided that it is done by the Minister, by Order, or by powers given by the Minister to a licensing authority. This is not an argument of principle.

Mr. Mahon: I always try to be tolerant to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) because he is receptive, but he must allow me to decide what is my argument. I seem to be getting along very pleasantly without interruption from the Chair, which is quite a change, and I shall do my best to continue in that manner.
We are trying to end an iniquitous and evil system. Anyone listening to hon. Members opposite would not realise that we had a great statesman as Minister of Transport. They would think that we had a nincompoop, who did not know what he was doing or saying, instead of a very eminent man as Minister of Transport. Under his stewardship transport in this country will go from strength to strength.

Mr. Marsh: I hope that my hon. Friend does not propose to end this fascinating part of his speech.

Mr. Mahon: Perhaps that was the best part of it.
Slowly and surely, with the best intentions, we are trying to end this system. But to ask a man to work 11 hours a day on two days a week and to work up to 60 hours a week is not a great step forward. I have been a working man all my life and I know what is involved in working 60 hours a week. It involves great sacrifice by the man who has to work for 60 hours and great sacrifice by the woman who is waiting at home to receive his wages at the week-end and sacrifice by the children. The hon. Member for Cathcart has a great deal to learn. He is eloquent but futile.
We are considering not only a period of 11 hours. It might involve stopping for a meal or for a cigarette or sometimes stopping at the docks, or at the great commercial undertakings of the country. There are bound to be unavoidable delays and these could result in a 11-hour day becoming a 14-hour day.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is wrong. Under the 1960 Act, to which the Minister referred, the maximum number of hours a driver may be on duty, including driving and waiting at the docks and elsewhere, is 11. The number cannot be stretched beyond that figure.

Mr. Mahon: I am not certain about that. Transport drivers seek accommodation from some of my constituents at all hours of the night and day. They work extremely long hours. The hon. Gentleman was one of the few members of the Standing Committee who did a great deal of genuine research into this matter and he appreciates the difficulties. He will accept that on many occasions extremely long hours are worked.

Mr. Bessell: I accept the principle of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I agree that there may be times when the limit is stretched, but the legal limit is 11 hours. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not, even unintentionally, wish to mislead the House.

Mr. Mahon: I am not a lawyer and I am not speaking of legal limits. I know how long and hard these men work and that is why the Lords Amendments should be rejected.

Sir John Gilmour: I support the flexibility which the Lords Amendment would give. Its incorporation in the Bill would be particularly helpful for country and rural areas. Hon. Members have overlooked many of the eventualities for which transport operators must cater. Much is often said about drivers being only an hour or two from home and belting the last few miles at high speed. My experience has been that transport operators fix the proper rate for transporting whatever the goods may be. A contractor will ask the type of goods, the loading time and the dis-

tance involved. It is essential that transport operators have flexibility in rural areas. An extra hour's driving on one day a week, in return for which drivers would drive an hour less on another day, would give this flexibility. There may be unscrupulous employers and drivers, but we must cater for the general run of operators.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) spoke of the effect of working long hours. One of the great advantages of the flexibility which the Amendment would give would be that drivers might not have to spend so many nights away from home. It should be possible on two days a week for a driver to work a little longer and so complete his journey, this being safeguarded by the rate which the haulage contractor has quoted to the customer.
Since the gales in Scotland large quantities of timber have had to be moved from central Scotland, some to the Highlands, to Fort William, some under 100 miles and some over that distance. Haulage contractors work out their schedules to keep them within the rules and regulations under current transport legislation. Regularly a contractor will say, "I can run two loads to such and such a terminal but I cannot do more without my drivers going beyond their permitted number of working hours." There are many occasions in the Highlands—lamb sales, store stock sales and so on—when flexibility is an essential part of running a successful transport industry. This flexibility helps to reduce costs to the user and at the same time look after the interests of the men. Flexibility is essential and for that reason we should agree to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) did his best to argue the case for the Amendment towards the end of his speech. I accept that a problem is involved here, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) pointed out, and the House has really been arguing whether the problem should be tackled legislatively across the board, so that the rules and regulations apply to all facets of the industry, or whether we should proceed along the flexible lines postulated by the


hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour).
Having had some experience of this matter, I appreciate the argument of flexibility. In recent years there has been considerable abuse of the rules applying to drivers' hours. The law has not been applied generally and it is to be hoped that it will be applied generally as a result of the Bill. By this Measure we are saying that a driver's day shall be comprised of 10 hours, with a total of 60 a week. That is, by any standards, a heavy week's work, and even allowing for a reduction on Saturdays, it will be 50 hours a week. It is now being argued that drivers should work 62 hours a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So many hon. Members commented "No" that I must stand corrected.
A weakness of this legislation is that it will apply throughout the industry, to both commercial and public service vehicles. There are certain exceptions, but it is fair to say that the Bill will apply across the board. Is this the right way to proceed? After all, there is a difference between driving a three-ton lorry down a motorway and driving a heavy lorry pulling a trailer with a total weight of perhaps 20 tons. Although I have not driven a commercial vehicle, it is obvious that the strain on the driver of a three-tonner is considerably different from that on the driver of a heavy lorry with four or five axles with five tons above each axle. If I were operating a fleet of lorries I would wish to stay within the law. However, there would be times when, in fairness to my customers, I would wish to have some flexibility. I would also want to do the right thing by my drivers.
The Lords Amendment would give overall coverage to the good man and the bad man, and it is the bad man we want to control. As I see the intention of my right hon. Friend's Amendment it is not to rely for flexibility on subsection (10), as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) did—the the intention of that subsection is possibly to meet national emergencies, industrial difficulties and various things of that kind which a wise legislative body would wish to write in—but on subsection (12).
In subsection (12) the Minister frankly recognises that with the passing of time

and, above all, after consultation with the appropriate bodies—and we are now entering into the field of detailed discussions with fleet operators of different types, sizes and requirements—the Minister can make such Orders as will meet the then circumstances in the light of some experience of the law on driving hours generally and make that law respected, as it has not been respected for so long.
First, let us get the law respected, and then adapt it to the normality of what we consider to be right in a business sense while, at the same time, within reason, making provision, not for industrial emergency, but for the sort of things that happen in the commercial world when one sometimes finds it necessary to be able to pull something out of the bag.
I see the Minister's Amendment as the way out. My only doubt is whether, by inserting the words
'either generally or with such exceptions as may be specified in the order',
he could, assuming that 10 hours is written in, make an Order covering the kind of flexible conditions about which we have been talking, or whether he would be confined by the legal meaning of the words to giving that flexibility only when he was thinking of reducing a stage further from 10 hours to 9 hours. If the Minister were to be trammelled by that limited definition, I would regret it.
I would be the last to throw any sand or grit in the wheels of the machinery of a movement forward to a generally respected code of hours and terms for driving vehicles on the road. That code should be seen to be fair and reasonable as, in principle, I believe that it is so seen by this wording, but there can be cases where flexibility is involved. It is on that point that I have a little uneasiness, although in principle I am with the Minister.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: Speaking as an agriculturist and as the director of a firm of agricultural merchants I am, as it were, on both ends of the stick—I receive the goods, and I help to deliver them. Speaking also as someone who, until I came to the House, drove a lorry for many years, I believe that there is a real case for flexibility. The Bill


will be expensive. It will cost agriculture and the merchants a considerable amount of money. I should have thought it not unreasonable to ask for a certain amount of flexibility.
I see no reason why a lorry driver should not work up to 11 hours on one day and then have a reduction in his hours the next. From my experience of lorry driving, and from talking to lorry drivers, I think that most of these men would like that. That would mean that they get home at certain times, but could deliver these loads if they had been delayed, perhaps at the docks.
As one coming from the South-West, I can say that our usual trips is to Bristol. There are sometimes delays at the docks there, and that means difficulty in getting one's load delivered within the legally permitted hours. This is important to agriculture, because the loads involved may be of cattle food or pig meal urgently required for feed on the farms. I see no reason why the drivers should not continue for another hour to deliver such important loads and so fulfil the purpose for which the lorry was designed, and the drivers, we know, want to give good service. We certainly do not want drivers to work such long hours that they get tired—

Mr. Bessell: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this Amendment does not propose the kind of flexibility that he is suggesting? It is not a question of working 11 hours on one day and nine the next. The Amendment is directed to line 15 in page 126. In order to get the kind of flexibility the hon. Gentleman wants, the Amendment would have to be to line 18 in page 127.

Mr. Mills: I may be wrong here, but I think that it does give the flexibility we seek. Let me give a practical illustration from the farming world—the delivery of stock—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In case my hon. Friend might be misled—

Mr. Mills: No, I am not misled.

Mr. Taylor: Line 18 in page 127 refers to the 60 hours total, and the point we on this side have consistently made is that we are not interfering with the 60

house. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his point.

Mr. Mills: I was not being misled. I fully understand that we do not want these drivers to work more than 60 hours. It is purely a question of flexibility on two days a week.
The practical point I was about to make relates to the delivery of stock. If a lorry driver has a wagon load of sheep or cattle and is making several drops he may be slightly delayed. It would be very wrong if those animals were not delivered on that day. It would not only be wrong but, to say the least, it would be unhelpful to the animals. We in agriculture look upon this as a very costly Bill. It will add to costs in every way. All we ask is that there should be a certain amount of flexibility so that the industry may cater for the difficulties which I have mentioned.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member is making quite a point but probably he has dealt with the Bill with less than his usual assiduity. If he looks at subsection (11) (i) he will see that the point he is raising is dealt with in the words:
that the contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of a journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen".

Mr. Mills: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. If he was listening he would have heard me say that I may be wrong on this point. He has put me right, but if he desires, I could give many instances, of the need for flexibility. I ask him to think again carefully about flexibility as it affects agriculture. It is necessary that he should do so. I warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I am sure he was right in all that he said.

Mr. James Bennett: We have heard a great deal about additional hours of driving on two days a week. While accepting a reduction in the working week, this Amendment seeks to say that one-third of the week will be worked on the old basis of 11 hours of driving. When the Government introduced the reduction it was based on the fact that traffic conditions are now so arduous and strenuous that a reduction in the driving hours was necessary. I


cannot find it reasonable to say that on any day of a week such driving would be less arduous or strenuous.
Much has been said about flexibility, but this could be confused with inefficiency. My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has made some of its best agreements with firms based on a 10 hour working day with no additional hours. Having listened to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, I am not in any way convinced that the Amendment would improve the Bill.

Mr. Hector Monro: I add support to those who have expressed concern about the effect of this Bill on the agricultural haulage industry. Doubt has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about whether the Minister may or may not lay Regulations and whether the amount of time is to be 10 hours downward or 10 hours upward. It is important that the Minister should say a little more about how this will affect the agricultural haulage industry and whether he will make Regulation affecting this branch of haulage. Of course I accept that drivers should not exceed 60 hours driving, but I want there to be the greatest flexibility in relation to the number of hours below 60.
The irregular hours for drivers in the agricultural haulage industry has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). The hours vary tremendously: sometimes six hours on one day and 11 hours on another. In the short period of August and September in Scotland there is the difficulty of the hill lamb sales. On one or two days 10,000 or 15,000 lambs have to be moved to a market for sale. It is not possible to move them from distant hill farms, load, unload and check en route and later in the afternoon return them to new pastures all within 10 hours. During the short period of the store lamb sales in the autumn the Minister must provide flexibility for longer hours to be worked on perhaps two days a week.

Mr. Manuel: I have some knowledge of Highland sheep sales. If a driver could not do this driving in 10 hours, 11 hours would not make much difference. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will know of the provision

for 100-mile licences, which does not apply to livestock.

Mr. Monro: I have not mentioned 100-mile licences. I am speaking of journeys of 20 or 30 miles involving bringing the lambs to the mart and taking them to other pastures. Such a provision would be a great advantage in the short periods of August and September when these sales take place. I hope the Minister appreciates that when the drivers have taken a large number of hours to bring the lambs in, they still must move them from the market because the lambs cannot be left in concrete pens overnight. If the Minister adheres strictly to the Bill as it stands this will mean double-shift working and an enormous increase in costs, in addition to having to employ inexperienced drivers. He must understand that movement of livestock is a special case. I hope that he will say he will make special Regulations to give greater flexibility.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I think that under the Bill the Minister has power to make Regulations for special cases and special industries, but so far no one has mentioned Regulations for special areas. In Cornwall we are in the unfortunate position of being too far from any market which can be reached to enable deliveries to be made in a day. Hauliers in my constituency say that under the Bill they will be able to deliver nowhere in a day except to Bristol or Southampton. Their range of delivery will be very much limited unless there can be some degree of flexibility, not only for a particular industry or on a particular occasion, but perhaps on two days a week for a greater distance. Otherwise, they will have to employ more drivers and will not be able to compete with hauliers nearer to the markets.
This would affect the fish trade, horticulture and a number of industries in which deliveries are made to central areas in the Midlands or London from areas near to them. If hauliers in the West Country have to employ extra drivers they will not be able to compete with firms nearer to the markets. I do not know whether the Minister could exempt some areas, but, if not, such a provision as is suggested by this Amendment would be very useful. This matter is of great


concern to hauliers in Cornwall, particularly those engaged in the fish trade and horticulture.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: I have much sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson). The problem to which he referred is common to us both, and I understand the difficulty which confronts many people who use road haulage in Cornwall. But in spite of that argument, I do not feel able to support the Amendment of another place.
When the Bill was first presented, the original wording of the relevant Clause, which was then Clause 115, was:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a driver shall not on any working day drive a vehicle or vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.
In Standing Committee I suggested an Amendment to alter nine hours to 10 hours. When the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was in office, there seemed to be not the remotest chance that that Amendment would be accepted, but when the right hon. Gentleman took his place as Minister of Transport one of the first things he did in Standing Committee was to present a statement to us in which he said that he had accepted the 10-hour principle, at least on a temporary basis. In an interruption I asked whether that meant that he would accept my Amendment. At the time, he said that it did not, but on Report he introduced precisely my Amendment.
I have always believed that the Minister made a great concession, because an immediate reduction from 11 to nine hours would have made a considerable difference to the industry. It would have caused complete disorganisation. But I have always believed that there was a strong argument for a general overall reduction in drivers' hours, and I was satisfied when the Minister did precisely what I had asked.
When this matter was discussed in Committee in another place, their Lordships did not press their Amendment to a Division, but apparently accepted the arguments put forward by the Government. It was only when they discussed the Bill on Report that they introduced

this Amendment. From that I am inclined to think that their Lordships had doubts similar to those which I feel about an increase even in this form.

Mr. Webster: I do not want to make life difficult, but the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee shows the hon. Gentleman as saying:
I beg to move Amendment No. 1994, in page 132, line 9, at end insert:
'except that on not more than two days in a working week he may drive for ten hours'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th April, 1968; c. 2915.]
Can the hon. Gentleman help us?

Mr. Bessell: I remember this very well, but at the time we were discussing a nine-hour day and I was proposing an increase to 10 hours on two days. We are not now discussing the same thing. We have the concession to 10 hours throughout. That Amendment obviously now ceases to be applicable.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), whose speeches I enjoy at all times, who presented his case with his usual vigour and clarity. But he was working on a slightly mistaken assumption. He said that the purpose of the Amendment was to provide greater flexibility, but also that he regarded the 60-hour week as sacrosanct—those were his words. However, the effect of the Amendment would be to permit a driver to work 62 and not 60 hours a week, because the Amendment is related to Clause 95(1) which reads:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a driver shall not on any working day drive a vehicle or vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than ten hours.
The Amendment proposes to add:
Provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week.
That means that he can drive a total of 62 hours. If their Lordships intended to provide greater flexibility, the Amendment should clearly have been introduced in a different form under subsection (5).

Mr. Gower: There is nothing in the Amendment to amend subsection (5) which says:
Subject to the provisions of this section a driver shall not be on duty in any working week for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than sixty hours.

Mr. Bessell: In that case, we have complete confusion, making the Amendment even more unacceptable, because it is quite clear that with the addition of the Amendment the driver could drive for 62 hours under subsection (1) while under subsection (5) he would be restricted to 60 hours. There is thus conflict and contradiction. It would be necessary to amend subsection (5) as well as subsection (1).

Mr. Gower: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The alteration would be subject to the overall statement that it should not be more than 60 hours.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman may be right and we could obviously argue about this at great length, but, as we are not in Committee. I do not propose to do so. Nevertheless, it would create a curious conflict within the terms of the Bill.
It has been suggested that agriculture will be considerably affected, and I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that special difficulty may be caused in special cases, such as the lamb sales in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland. However, the industry would not be directly affected, because we are here dealing with drivers on the highway and not about how long a person may drive a tractor in a field, which is a totally different issue. There cannot be many occasions when an agricultural worker or farmer would be likely to find it necessary to drive a vehicle in excess of 10 hours in a day, and certainly an increase to 11 hours would not make much difference on the two days a week.
But, having said all that and having put all those arguments aside, I still feel that we have to accept that there must be a reduction in the number of hours when a driver may be at the wheel. There is no doubt that in modern road conditions, with the ever-increasing amount of traffic, even to permit a driver to be at the wheel for 60 hours a week is wrong. We have generally accepted the principle of a 40-hour working week in most industries, and yet we are discussing whether we should allow something in excess of 60 hours a week driving. I do not believe that the case for it has been made.
The Minister's concession is important, not in the context of the Amendment, but

in the context of the time when the nine-hour order is introduced. But, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out, in exceptional conditions the Minister may make exceptions, and that, I think, covers the main point of the discussion.
I turn now to the argument about whether a driver is more fatigued at the end of his journey than at the beginning. I have no doubt about it. I frequently drive from my constituency to London, a matter of 220 miles, and back again. No one can tell me that I am more fatigued when I start my driving at the Palace of Westminster than I am when I arrive in Liskeard, or vice versa. It is just not so. These are matters of common knowledge. We put severe limits on, for example, the number of hours for which a pilot may be at the controls of an aircraft, and we do it because of the danger of fatigue at the end of the journey.

Mr. Webster: The hon. Gentleman is not on the point. I do not dispute that he is more fatigued at the end of a journey. The point concerns the simple psychology of a man who is undertaking a long journey, a journey which calls for a great deal more care than the short-haul journey. This is often proven by tragic statistics.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that. Undoubtedly, a man doing a long journey is more alert and takes a great deal more care, for one obvious reason if for no other, that he generally does not have to cope with such heavy traffic conditions. Nevertheless, at the end of a journey a driver is more fatigued. There can be no doubt about that.
In my view, we must make a start somewhere. The Minister went a long way to meet the case by agreeing to reduce the number of working hours in stages. That being so, in spite of the important arguments which have been advanced from this side—I do not question the force of some of the special cases which have been cited—I still feel that we should accept the position as it is now and, for my part, I shall not advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Lords Amendment.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Unlike the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), I hope that the House will accept


the Lords Amendment. It will have a considerable effect for agriculture. I am sorry to keep mentioning agriculture—no doubt, my hon. Friends are, too—but the Bill is designed mainly for the road haulage industry, and it is to that industry and its undoubted needs that the arguments of hon. Members opposite are chiefly directed. However, as the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) pointed out, there is great need for flexibility in conditions which are not those of the road haulage industry generally.
As I read it, the Amendment would enable drivers to have a marginally longer day on two days a week, and I take it that this would be balanced by a shorter day on other days, taking into account circumstances in which there is considerable variation in the work to be done. I shall cite examples from agriculture, but they are not confined to agriculture. I am thinking particularly of the transport of livestock. A journey carrying heifers from, say, a farm in the north to a farm in the south may well take 11 hours. That is a fairly common case. The livestock now will usually go by road. Where the rail facilities are no longer available as in most cases, livestock has to go by road.
The logic of such a journey is that if 11 hours of driving are necessary to complete it, the driver will stay overnight and then return with another load, probably, the next day. Thus, there are two 11-hour days with a night's rest in between, giving optimum use of both driver and vehicle. The same argument applies to the round trip, leaving home and doing a journey of roughly 5½ or 5 hours driving and then come back in the same day.
Flexibility of that kind is desirable. These journeys cannot be refused because the goods have to be moved. The consequence of removing such flexibility will be either that one has to send two drivers to do the job or one driver only will be sent but less use will be made of the vehicle. Vehicles can be worked hard, but—

Mr. Marsh: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is essential to be able to have two days in a week with 11 hours of driving time.
I take it that he realises that the Lords Amendment, which he supports, does not allow that.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Hill: My impression is that the Lords Amendment does allow 11 hours driving. Is that not so?

Mr. Marsh: With the second reduction down to nine hours, the one hour then, presumably, would make 10.

Mr. Gower: It does not increase the 60 hours.

Mr. Hill: It does not affect the 60 hours. It seems to me that on two days there can be driving for 11 hours. I am simple enough to think that "driving" means driving.
That is one aspect of the need for flexibility. There are other ways in which agriculture and allied industries such as forestry and horticulture need further flexibility. There is a dilemma facing agriculture in this connection. It could easily happen that certain people who are not primarily employed as drivers will qualify as drivers because they have driven a vehicle for more than four hours in one day, under the terms of Clause 95(7). I think, for example, of an agricultural engineer's service fitter whose job it is to go from the dealer's depot and visit broken-down machinery in the fields. The jobs may be scattered over one or more counties, and he has to take spare parts and mend the machinery or vehicles. At harvest time, it is vital that machinery such as combine harvesters shall be kept running, and it is easy for such an engineer to drive more than four hours in one day. He may well do four or more round trips averaging half an hour each way from his factory during the day, thus qualifying him as a driver.
Another example is the veterinary surgeon's assistant who travels in what looks like a private car but which, if it carries a lot of medical and veterinary supplies, may be caught—I am not sure about this —particularly if it be
constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers",
as a shooting brake or pick-up type of vehicle may be.
Another category—these are all common categories in agriculture—is the farm employee or manager who takes a pick-up


type of vehicle on a journey of four hours. A likely example would be to go to a factory for a spare part which is not otherwise immediately obtainable through the usual distributor's channels. At harvest time, it may well be vital for a farm vehicle to go on a journey of 200 miles or more to obtain an essential spare part. Such a person would qualify as a driver, and it seems to me that he would then be caught within the provisions of the Clause, although in the ordinary sense of the word he is not a professional transport driver. It would seem that not only this subsection but other subsections would catch him, notably subsection (5), limiting his working week to 60 hours.
I must differ with earlier speakers. Although I agree that 60 hours is the maximum number of hours which should be driven on the roads in a week, it is certainly not the maximum number of hours which should be worked by people during harvest time, nor is it the maximum to which they would wish to be limited. Their work is dictated by nature. It is not uncommon for men to be frustrated by being able to do nothing for several days, and then, when the weather improves, they want to work all the hours of daylight and dryness.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment, which deals with extra hours.

Mr. Hill: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am welcoming the Amendment, because it would appear to allow the people to whom I am referring to work marginally longer days.

Mr. Marsh: There must be some limit to this. If the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (9), he will see that it provides:
For the purpose of subsections (1) and (7) of this section no account shall be taken of any time spent driving a vehicle elsewhere than on a road if the vehicle is being so driven in the course of operations of agriculture.

Mr. Hill: I entirely agree. But it says:
For the purposes of subsections (1) and (7) …
I am worried about the effect of subsection (5), which limits the working week to 60 hours. This is my real worry; it is not an imaginary worry. It would seem that many people might be trapped by

the Bill, in having their maximum working week limited to 60 hours even if they are not driving on the roads but for example harvesting in the fields. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen. The defence which he put forward earlier concerning subsection (11)(i) is not open to him here. We know that this will happen. It is part of the ordinary pattern.
An hon. Member said he thought that the subsection would apply in times of natural emergency. I hope that "special need" will allow an exception to be made. It is clear that some very unfortunate effects will flow from the Bill. The Minister could make exceptions, but he has not indicated that he will do so. Will he give an assurance that the categories of people to whom I have referred will be exempted, in the same way as we had at a very late hour last Thursday an assurance that a transport operator's licence would not be required for agricultural vehicles? That was a very helpful concession.

Mr. Manuel: If the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (10) carefully, he will see that it goes rather wider than national emergencies. It provides:
For the purpose of enabling vehicles to which this Part of this Act applies to be used in cases of emergency or otherwise to meet a special need …
the Minister may by regulation make the exemption for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is quoting in my favour. I cannot claim these cases to be emergencies. They are predictable certainties which will occur in any farming area. Whether they amount to "special need" is open to interpretation. I hope that "special need" gives the Minister power to make exceptions which will have to be made if a whole industry is not to be put in difficulty. I hope that the Minister will say, "I have this power and, furthermore, I give an assurance that I will use it".

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) is not entirely accurate in suggesting that the Amendment has anything to do with 60 hours a week. The Amendment has no relation to that at all. It deals solely with the provision about working 10 hours in one day. I agree with my hon. Friend


the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) that nothing that we have said today has anything to do with the period of 60 hours a week.
One cannot be sure about anything in this world, but I am fairly certain that any alteration of the figure of 10 hours per day will not have the slightest effect on the period of 60 hours a week. If it would have the slightest effect, the Minister would have come here armed with the advice of the Attorney-General and would have raised an objection at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Bessell: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have looked at the matter in that connection. However, I think that he will agree that the Amendment's effect would be to create a curious ambiguity.

Mr. Gower: I do not see any ambiguity at all. Under the Bill, if it were not amended, any employer who permitted his driver to work the extra hour on one day a week would have to concede that hour on another day.

Mr. Manuel: The Bill does not say so.

Mr. Gower: It is clear from the Bill. The Bill refers to the period of not more than 60 hours. If the employer and driver did not sacrifice an hour to compensate for the extra hour, they would be infringing the requirement concerning the period of 60 hours a week. The Minister nods in agreement. I think that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) must agree, too.
The understandable speeches which have been made, such as that of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), who expressed his conviction that drivers' hours are often too long, have little relevance to this debate. It is agreed on both sides of the House that in the past drivers have been working excessive hours. It is conceivable that fewer hours might be objectionable in certain weather conditions. It might be easier to drive for 11 hours on a pleasant summer day than to drive for five hours on a bitterly cold, icy, winter day. The load which is carried might have an effect.
We agree as firmly as the Minister and his colleagues with the maximum requirement of 60 hours, but we plead for a

little tolerance and flexibility within that maximum. In pleading for tolerance and flexibility, we have the Minister's agreement that it is necessary. He does not say, "You are asking for the wrong thing". He says, "I agree that what you are asking for is reasonable, but I will give it to you in a different way. I will give it to you by regulation. I do not want it put in the Bill. But this regulation will not be mandatory on me. It will merely provide that I may make an order in which I may prescribe certain things and dispense with certain things, and I may even empower licensing authorities to dispense with certain things".
That is a roundabout way of dealing with the matter. It does not hind the Minister to do what we think it is necessary for him to do. It leaves him with a free hand. If hon. Members agree that what is suggested in the Amendment is desirable, it should be put in the Bill. It should not be left to the Minister to choose whether or not he should make an order.
7.0 p.m.
In reply to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), it would be inconceivable that all the infinite variety of cases which might arise should be subject to a precise and special grant of licence by different licensing authorities. It would create an enormous amount of work and clog up their important work in other respects.

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes; I agree, up to a point, with what the hon. Gentleman says, but the intention of the Act is to minimise that. Clause 95(1) shows that we are talking about 10 hours of driving time, actual time behind the wheel—not the working day, which can be longer.

Mr. Gower: I thought I had dealt with that earlier. We are merely asking for this tolerance within the requirement of 60 hours a week. We are not asking for a single minute more. We have asked for tolerance and flexibility, and the Minister agrees that this is desirable and recognises the need for it. He says that he will create it by order or regulation, but we say that it is better to have it set out in the Bill.

Mr. Donald Williams: I have great sympathy with many of my hon.


Friends who have spoken in support of flexibility for agriculture, but there has been little mention of the necessity for flexibility for industry. I represent part of the West Midlands. We have a time factor in the delivery of goods which must come to the London area. It is extremely difficult to deliver in exactly or less than 10 hours. Everybody on both sides of the House wants to see industry progressing, and for this to happen we must have the goods flowing.
In Dudley and Stourbridge we make components for the motor industry, the shipbuilding industry and many other industries, and it is essential for those industries that the components should get to the further manufacturing stage in good time and at the right time. The men concerned are faced, by geographical reasons, with almost exactly a 10-hour drive. Is it not reasonable to have a small amount of flexibility for the drivers for two days of the week to make this a possibility? The Minister himself has agreed that flexibility is wanted, and I hope that he will give this flexibility to help the industrialist as well as the agriculturalist.
There is another point with regard to the question of fatigue and men driving for a certain number of hours. What does not seem to be recognised at the moment is the tremendous improvement in driving conditions coming along with the improved models of vehicles which the men will drive. I believe that a man who has for years been able to drive, when necessary, successfully and safely for a period of 11 hours will certainly, on the rare occasions when he is asked to do it, be able to drive for up to 11 hours in one day with the better equipment which is now at his disposal.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I apologise in advance for what might appear to be a great discourtesy, intervening in the debate when I have just come into the Chamber and the debate has been going on for two and a half hours. But I have been on Parliamentary business, and there is a point that I should like the Minister to keep in mind.
I refer to the problems facing coach drivers on long-distance package tours in this country. An instance is people on a package holiday from Scotland to the

South of England. If the Bill stays as it is it will mean an addition to the costs of operators of these tours which may take the tours out of the range of many hundreds of thousands of people who recognising the general desire, take their holidays at home and keep their money here instead of spending sterling abroad. They may not be able to afford to do it or at any rate they will not be getting the same value for money.
I wonder whether the Bill can be amended so that a relief driver can be taken on the coach. There will then not be the terrific hours of driving to affect the efficiency and general health of the drivers. However, I understand that even if a relief driver travels with the coach that is not deemed to cover the need for the four-hour break. It may be that if some means is found of having a relief driver the extra costs will not have to be passed on to the customer. If the Minister could do that I am sure that he would be doing what he wants to do in his heart, and it would make the Bill, bad though it is, more amenable.

Mr. Marsh: We have had a long discussion. Looking at my notes, it seems that we have about 150 more Amendments to get through before breakfast, and I thought that this was a reasonable point at which to intervene with the leave of the House.
The arguments against the Government's Amendment have largely come down to two. On one hand it is said that flexibility is essential because of the problems of agriculture, industry and the British economy in general. I think the argument has been rather exaggerated. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) told us from his knowledge of agriculture how terribly important it was to have the magic figure of 11 hours on call—not necessarily all the time, but on call. I then made the point that if the figure of 11 hours is essential the Lords Amendment does not provide that. Subsection (12) states:
The Minister may, after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be representative of the employers and employees concerned, by order … direct that subsection (1) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to ten hours of a reference to nine hours ".
So if one substituted in subsection (1) nine hours and gave authority to drive


an extra hour, my calculations lead me to the conclusion that that approaches a driving day of 10 hours, not 11 hours. I do not want to get involved in a mathematical argument, but there has been an overstatement of the argument. This has weakened the case.
I was grateful when the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that the argument about the working week was not in dispute. There are very few people who would reopen the argument about the working week. I accept that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South does not agree with that, but I think that on the whole the Opposition accept the 60-hour week.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: What I pointed out was that the Bill traps agricultural workers who by chance have qualified as drivers for a particular week. That is my point, which the Minister has not met. There is a flaw in the Clause.

Mr. Marsh: The problem is that the Amendment does not deal with subsection (5). I am prepared to discuss it, but we should be going again over an argument which is not concerned with this point. The point relates purely to the hours being reduced in the first instance from 11 to 10 and subsequently from 10 to nine. Is it reasonable that we should refuse an Amendment which would allow the Government at the second stage of the reduction to provide the degree of flexibility by, if necessary, laying orders to achieve the effect of an extra hour on certain days, as suggested by their lordships? We really must see this against the background of the situation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has a capacity to sacrifice fact in the cause of volume which staggers all of us. He based his argument trenchantly on the need to stay on a par with our friends in the E.E.C. He developed the argument at length and with vigour. We on this side could hardly mishear it. Nor could anyone else within reasonable walking distance.
The hon. Gentleman said that this would hamper British industry in competition with continental industry because the Community's proposals allow for extension of driving time on certain

days. He did not go on to tell us that, from October next year, the Community is to reduce the driving time down to nine hours—not ten—and for lorries over 20 tons gross laden weight the reduction will be to eight hours. We are thus told that British industry cannot conceivably cope with a reduction in driving time to ten hours whereas the continentals are discussing a reduction to eight hours.

Mr. Webster: Be that as it may, is it not a fact that, under the Community regulations, which are to be introduced, a "mate" could be in the van and could be completely resting, whereas here, while he might stay in the van, he would be considered as working all the time, although if he rode a motor cycle behind the lorry he could take over.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully before he goes any further. If my memory serves me right, in some of the Community's recommendations a deputy driver is a legal requirement. I do not think that British industry would be wildly enthusiastic about that. He might be wise to consult some of his friends on that aspect.
The point is that most countries are now recognising that the driving of very heavy lorries in modern traffic conditions causes us, once in 30 years, to look again at the length of the driving day. They recognise that the man who is driving a very heavy vehicle for 10 hours has probably done a very solid day's driving from his own point of view and from the point of view of the public—and that is no criticism of anyone.
The argument is whether, given this situation, we have paid due regard to the various problems which might arise from time to time, and which I fully accept, in particular sections of industry. This is precisely why I put down the Government Amendment, which would mean that we could look at the situation, have consultations and see what effects there had been. I am sure that the effects will not be as serious as some hon. Members suggest. They know more about farming than I shall ever know, since it is not my field. But I cannot believe that French, German, Italian and Dutch sheep are basically different from ours and if French, German, Italian and Dutch farmers can manage on hours shorter


than is suggested here, it seems at least possible to say that what is proposed here can be coped with by British farmers.
Perhaps the problems will be bigger than I think now. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir Robert Cary) always makes a perfectly reasonable speech on these matters. His argument tonight is that he is not at odds with what we are seeking to achieve but that, if this proviso is written into the Bill now, Parliament knows that it is there whereas, if it is left to Ministerial Order, the Minister may or may not lay an Order. It is a fair point.
My reason for preferring to do the thing in this way is that my scheme will enable us to have more knowledge. We will have seen how the thing works. The Government Amendment contains more flexibility than does the Lords Amendment. We have heard passionate pleas to us to look especially at this or that exclusion but the Lords Amendment says:
Provided that he may drive an extra hour on not more than two days in a working week.
On the other hand, the Government Amendment says that the Minister may act
either generally or with such exceptions as may be specified in the order.
This gives an opportunity to the Minister to look at the whole system to see how it has worked in practice and to the House to debate what we want to do on an affirmative resolution.
7.15 p.m
I believe that the arguments have been exaggerated by the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite—and this is particularly true of certain hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies—fear for the sanctity of the ability to drive for eleven hours. But neither the Lords Amendment nor the Government Amendment would give them that. They have lost that one. No one is on their side. The Lords Amendment would produce a maximum of ten hours on the second reduction. On the other hand, if we were to take that proposal on the first reduction and allow an extra hour's driving time, this would, for the reasons I gave to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) produce a working day under this Bill longer than the working

day under the existing Act. That cannot be the intention of the Opposition or of the Lords.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What about coach drivers?

Mr. Marsh: I do not want to go into that matter. This is a fairly narrow Lords Amendment concerning an hour's extension. I do not think that the difficulties generally will be as big as suggested. The Government Amendment will enable us to meet difficulties which will arise when we know what those difficulties are, and I therefore ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Webster: I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment. As usual, the Minister makes himself out to be a reasonable chap. Indeed, compared with his predecessor, he is. We welcome that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the second stage. I remember the first time he sat in the Standing Committee on this Bill and his bewilderment and horror when he realised the consequences of many of the things contained in the Bill and which the Minister of State—who should be very good at the new Department of Social Services—was proposing. After a week of seeing the fury of the Opposition, the two-stage announcement was made and we welcomed that as a reasonable step.
The Lords Amendment is the result of sharp and severe pressure by the Opposition in both Houses. The right hon. Gentleman would be more reasonable if he were to produce the report which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was asking for by the Ministry of Transport's Transport Consultative Committee. It is important that he should do so. The Committee considered the subject but we have had no report from it divulged to an expectant public. That Committee should be particularly sensitive on the subject since the Estimates Committee criticised the fact that the Road Research Laboratory had been suborned by the Ministry of Transport and there is a doubt as to the independence of reports by that body. It would be excellent if the right hon. Gentleman would publish the Committee's report on the subject,


which would let us get down to the facts of the case.
I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) to vote with us. In Committee, he trenchantly moved that we should allow an extra hour on the driving day. I appreciate that, at that stage, it concerned a driving day of nine hours but the principle remains the same. I will quote his wise words:
… I have in mind emergency journeys—goods which are going to the docks for export, unforeseen traffic conditions which might arise at any time and make it necessary for latitude to exist which could be used within the discretion of the driver and the employer or manufacturer".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 30th April, 1968; c. 2916.]
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on those words and I hope that he will use them to guide his footsteps into the Lobby with us.

Mr. Bessell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we were then discussing an increase from 9 to 10 hours. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be an increase from 10 to 11 hours and that is a different matter.

Mr. Webster: I appreciate that, but the principle is the same. I hope that the argument of flexibility which the hon. Gentleman then used will convince him that he should come into the Lobby with us now. This is a valuable Amendment. It would still keep the driving week within 60 hours. There is no intention to do anything other than that.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart in a tribute to the long-distance commercial driver in Britain. It is proven that he has no peer in the driving fraternity. He has a first-rate record of safety and conscientiousness. The statistics show that the danger does not necessarily arise at the beginning of a long haul. It is the short haul—the M4 motorway proves this. Also—commercial usage proves this—it is the small tipper vehicle, often ill maintained, that causes danger. These are the people we should be getting at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams) made a cogent plea. I see his point. He is right on the 10-hour radius from London.

This would make a great deal of difference to an area which needs all the industrial assistance it can get.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, who has had a sudden bout of enthusiasm for the Common Market, have been bandying statistics across the table. My understanding of drivers' hours in Common Market countries is that if there is a mate he can take over the wheel at the end of eight hours and the vehicle can continue. Nothing like that can happen in Britain; the mate cannot do anything at the end of the period of 10 hours, though if he had driven a motor car behind the lorry for the 10 hours he could then take over. This shows some of the absurdities which arise. The fact that the Secretariat has proposed to the Commission that a mate should be obligatory does not mean that it will be approved.
I have been asked to say to the Minister that the Common Market regulations on driving hours for goods vehicles are likely to be a 13-hour working day, with 15 hours permitted twice a week. The driving day will be 9 hours, but twice a week it will be 10 hours. I am sure that the Minister, knowing the devotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart to the Common Market, will accept those words from him.
Yet again we are trying to prevent an excess of rigidity. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) made a very wise speech. Small emergencies crop up all the time. Allowance must be made for these, both in an agricultural day and in an ordinary business day, and the greatest of flexibility must be given within the maximum of 60 hours. The Minister is to take powers by Order, but these powers will not come into effect until the second stage. We want to ensure that at the beginning the arrangements are flexible and that there is not excessive rigidity at the beginning, because this will destroy good will for operating; and, if good will for operating is destroyed, there is connivance and breaches of the law.
This Lords Amendment also is an improvement on the Bill as it stood when it went to the other House. I ask my hon. Friends and members of the Liberal Party to vote in favour of the proposition that this House supports the Lords.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 256. Noes 201.

Division No. 303.]
AYES
7.24 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mapp, Charles


Bacon, Rt Hn. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Gardner, Tony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Barnett, Joel
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Baxter, William
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Beaney, Alan
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bence, Cyril
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Neal, Harold


Boston, Terence
Hamling, William
Newens, Stan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Boyden, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Haseldine, Norman
O'Malley, Brian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Brooks, Edwin
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hilton, W. S.
Padley, Walter


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchan, Norman
Horner, John
Paget, R. T.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howie, W.
Pardoe, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Roebuck, Roy


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rose, Paul


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dell, Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Sheldon, Robert


Dewar, Ronald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short,P.t.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Joseph


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Small, William


English, Michael
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macdonald, A. H.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James




Urwin, T. W.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wallace, George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Yates, Victor


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Grant-Ferris, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N W 
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Llonel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hill, J. E. B.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Royle, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Teeling, Sir William


Crouch, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Temple, John M.


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tilney, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Waddington, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Doughty, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ward, Dame Irene


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marten, Neil
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Emery, Peter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wylie, N. R.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Hector Monro

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 129, line 30, at end insert 'either gener-

ally or with such exceptions as may be specified in the order'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 106: In page 128, line 16, at end insert "or forestry".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It would be wrong to let this Amendment go without a brief comment. This is a very important Amendment, which we on this side of the House fully accept, because it gives to forestry the same exemptions which we provided for agriculture. We are very much aware of the importance of forestry to Great Britain, and particularly to Scotland. It is an Amendment which we have presesd throughout the proceedings, and we are glad to see it now accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 109: In page 129, line 45, at end insert:
Provided that the appointed day for the purpose; of section 95 of this Act shall not precede the appointed day of section 96 of this Act.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The main argument on this is that the proposal is unnecessarily restrictive. There is a lot of misunderstanding, and no decisions have been taken on the timing, or information which may or may not be needed. Before we come to discuss the Regulations there will be consultation with both sides of industry on the whole question.

Mr. Peter Walker: I note the remarks of the Minister and I would urge that we on this side of the House do not debate this Amendment at any length, as the Minister has agreed to have talks with the trade unions. Certain interests throughout the country have expressed their fears of this sort of instrument, and the Minister has quite rightly agreed to negotiations. With the talk of the possibility of strikes, I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to aggravate the position. We hope that these

consultations are carried out speedily, so that doubt can be removed at the earliest opportunity, and that no industrial unrest takes place as a result of this move. In those circumstances, I urge my hon. Friends not to divide the House but instead to pass on to further Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 104

MAINTENANCE OF THE BOARD'S WATERWAYS

Lords Amendment No. 124: In page 139, line 34, at end insert:
( ) Subject to the provisions of this Act

(a) it shall be lawful for all persons holding a valid licence from the Board for which the prescribed fee has been paid to use the commercial waterways and the cruising waterways with any ship or boat in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in the licence;
(b) the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence for the use of any commercial or cruising waterway by any person;
(c) the term shall mean and include any authorisation issued by the Board for the movement of any vessel in return for payment."

Read a Second lime.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Berry: This is an Amendment which was quite rightly made by the Lords and I am surprised that the Government have seen fit to move that we disagree with their Lordships. I speak without any knowledge of why the Government disagree with their Lordships, who made a considerable number of improvements to this important Part of the Bill during their considerable discussions on it. That was all the more important because we in this House were very limited in our time to discuss it.
The point in question concerns rights of navigation on the inland waterways. It is an extremely important and fundamental aspect of public right on any highway. The Amendment is much more limited than the original Amendment on which the House of Lords had a tie, and


in the Amendment as it is now put forward we come down to the nub of the matter.
Since the Amendment by another place was supported by members of all parties, I am still more surprised that the Government have seen fit to wish to disagree with it now that it has come to us. It seeks to ensure the very right that everyone wishes to see enjoyed by the public: the right to use the waterways under certain conditions as and when people wish to do so.
In dealing with what I understand to be the present legal position, I wish to refer first to the right of navigation and to quote from Coulson and Forbes on "Waters", sixth edition, as follows:
The navigation of canals is, of course, open to all the public on payment of tolls, and it has been held that there is a public right of use of a canal with boats propelled by steam, provided they do no more injury than is occasioned by traction by horses.
As to the definition of a canal, the same learned volume states that
A canal may be defined to be an artificial highway by water.
My third quotation, from Pratt on "Highways" is as follows:
It is essential to the notion of a highway that it should be open to all members of the public.
That is the position today. If, however, this House rejects the Amendment, the position will no longer be the same.
7.45 p.m.
The British Waterways Board, for example, has a conflict of responsibilities in this connection. It is, on the one hand, guardian of the waterways and, on the other hand, it is a commercial operator on those waterways. There could easily he a difference of opinion between those two responsibilities. Indeed, it might be that the Board would have to discriminate between one man and another or between one concern and another. I agree, as the Government will probably tell us, that it is unlikely that that would happen, but the mere fact that it is unlikely does not mean that it could not happen. I suggest, therefore, that steps should be taken to ensure that it could not happen.
The Amendment explains the matter very fully and its detailed words are extremely important. Paragraph (a) could

not conceivably be said to do any harm to the Clause. Since the existing use is implied, I do not see why it should not be written firmly into the Statute Book. Secondly, there is no suggestion that the Waterways Board would unreasonably withhold its powers. Therefore, why not state that it is not to withhold them?
One advantage of the Amendment is that it would provide protection for independent operators. It would remove a possible criticism from the Board. Indeed, it could easily save it from embarrassment. It might encourage investment on the waterways, and we all agree that finances are an important aspect of the Board's responsibilities. The Amendment is of great importance also for commercial users, who spend a great deal of money every year on the waterways.
There are also what I would like to describe as the non-disadvantages. They do not necessarily add to the importance of the Clause but they certainly do no possible harm to it. They include such matters as the fact that the control of pleasure craft by the Waterways Board remains safety factors, which obviously are of fundamental importance, would remain exactly as before and the same management flexibility would remain. For all these reasons, I suggest that this is an Amendment which the Government should find it easy to accept.
Linked very much with this is the right of claim against injury, which was discussed in Committee, when the Minister of State said:
Anybody who sustains injury in navigating on a waterway, with a licence from the Board, will have a right against the Board in the same way as he would have a right against the Railway Board. This is completely covered under the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 2nd May, 1968; c. 3063–4]
The Minister subsequently said that he would look into the matter. He has not yet given a further answer. Possibly, the Amendment affords him a suitable opportunity to do so, because my interpretation of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957, is that that is not the case.
Section 2(1) of that Act is as follows:
An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the 'common duty of care', to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise.


The words "by agreement" destroy the earlier argument of the Minister of State, although possibly he may be able to tell us more now.
I have here a copy of the licence form issued by the British Waterways Board which must be filled in by anyone wishing to obtain a licence to use waterways. On the back, paragraph 8 of the conditions reads as follows:
The Board shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the owner's craft or any property on board thereof nor for any personal injury (whether fatal or otherwise) to any person on the craft or upon any property of the Board in the course of proceeding to or departing from the craft whether such loss damage or injury is caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Board their servants or agents or not.
I suggest to the Minister of State that at the present time paragraph 8 does not tally with the existing law.
I am very much in favour of the principle of not taking away any public right, as I think are most people in this country. I am surprised that the Government should have taken an opposite view. The mere unlikelihood of the Board unreasonably withholding, and so on, is irrelevant. It is the fact that it could do so which is so important.
The one waterway which has acted under the same regulations very happily for 36 years is the Thames Conservancy. Indeed, the opening words of the Amendment are exactly similar to words contained in Section 79 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. We need equality among those who wish to navigate, and that equality will be lost if we disagree with the Lords Amendment.
The white Paper "British Waterways Recreation and Amenity", which was published just over a year ago, was almost the only White Paper to be published by this Government which was universally approved when it first appeared. Unfortunately, between the time of the publication of the White Paper in September last year and the Transport Bill in December, somebody in the Government had second thoughts. There is no mention in the White Paper of the withdrawal of those public rights. The Minister may shake his head, but there is no mention of it, and it is in the Bill. I am sad that this is so, and that the Government have missed the oppor-

tunity of admitting their mistakes, although there is still time.
I hope that the fact that the Minister has not spoken before indicates that he will be persuaded by what I have said and what my hon. Friends will say in due course. I believe that it will be in the interests of the users of the waterways, who are the people with whom we are concerned, that we should agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: First I must apologise to the House. I somehow had the curious and obviously quite inaccurate impression that there would be no disagreement about this. I thought that the reasons why we moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment were well understood and that the argument had been raked over at such tremendous length that the House would not wish to do so again. I apologise for making this mistake. I should have made a statement at the beginning as to why we moved to disagree.
I am saddened by what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has just said. He has gone rather widely over the arguments. He has had responsibility for dealing with the waterways section of the Bill over a considerable part of these proceedings, and I am saddened to think that he prefers the legalistic argument about rights to navigate canals, many of which have long been derelict, to the priorities which were put forward in the White Paper. I would not put the two on a par. The White Paper tried to put forward priorities for the waterways system, based on the available funds. I should be very much saddened if those people who had genuinely supported the priorities set forth in the White Paper were now completely confused as a result of a legalistic argument, and ended by preferring the latter.
The reasons we move to disagree with the Amendment are simple. The Amendment seeks to provide that it shall be lawful for all persons holding a valid licence from the Waterways Board to use the commercial and cruising waterways in the manner and for the purposes described in the licence, and that the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of such a licence.
The first part of the Amendment is wholly and completely unnecessary. It


is simply a provision saying that the holder of a valid licence can navigate in accordance with the terms of the licence by virtue of the contract which the licence itself constitutes. I think legal gentlemen will agree that there is no need to put into an Act of Parliament that a licence holder can navigate in accordance with the terms of the licence. However, that is what is being proposed here.
The second part of the Amendment introduces something that is entirely novel. There has been a good deal of confusion in this controversy about so-called rights in relation to the waterways. I say emphatically that we and the British Waterways Board believe, and have always been advised, that pleasure craft—and I am speaking of pleasure craft and not of freight-carrying craft—use the waterways in this country only by licence from the Board.
There is a clear distinction between the rights, as they are called, of freight-carrying craft and of pleasure craft. The legal advice given over a long period of time to Ministers and to the Waterways Board is that pleasure craft generally speaking have no right of navigation at all; they navigate because of the licences issued by the Waterways Board. Therefore the Board has discretion whether or not to grant licences. I am advised, and the precedents have been looked up, that that has always been the position with pleasure craft.
The controversy has raged in regard to freight carrying craft, although most of our waterways do not have freight carrying craft any more. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate has been talking about rights as if these had been long standing or traditional. Over the whole period of history no such right of navigation for pleasure craft has existed, and the Board has therefore always had, and we are simply proposing it should continue to have, a normal discretionary power in this respect.
There is another part to the Amendment which is very important as those who have followed the controversies over the years will know. To some extent the Amendment would mean a reversion to the system operating before the Transport Act, 1962. Before that Act, the charges and the terms which the British Transport Commission could impose for

the use of the waterways were, as hon. Members will know, subject to a charges scheme made in 1958, which stated that the charges and the terms had to be reasonable. If anyone considered at that time that they were not reasonable, he could appeal to the Transport Tribunal.
8.0 p.m.
That system was abolished by the 1962 Act, under which the Board was given "commercial freedom", as it was expressed then. We have considered this matter carefully in relation to our whole inheritance in the waterways system and to what was done in the 1962 Act, and we now consider that the administration of the Waterways Board should not be fettered in the way proposed in the Amendment, but we believe that the Board should continue to have the commercial freedom which, it would generally be agreed, has been reasonably exercised since 1962. Therefore we should not revert, which is what this Amendment would mean, to the system which existed before 1962.
These are the simple and straightforward reasons why we consider that the Amendment should not be accepted. I emphasise again: the licence holder's position is secure, through the terms of the licence and of the contract which the licence represents. Over the years, the Waterways Board has proven that it acts reasonably in this respect and there is no need to provide something in the Act, any more than there is a need to make a provision about the Railways Board having to sell railway tickets in a reasonable way. It is not necessary.
When hon. Members talk about rights, I hope that they will be very careful in their definitions, because it is not correct for people to assume, or to be led to believe, that the right to use pleasure craft on the waterways system is an inherited right. Our legal advisers say that this right does not exist. It is there by virtue of the action of the Board in confirming contracts by means of licences, and we think that that is the right way for the system to continue to be conducted.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I must admit that I was concerned when none was forthcoming, since this part of the Bill was


not dealt with in Committee. My only comment is that, having heard his explanation, I think that there might be another reason as well as misunderstanding—that his Ministry realised that his explanation was so weak that it had better not be put to the House.
He has confirmed the very good reason for the Amendment, and I cannot understand what the Government object to. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to divide the waterways into three categories, and provide those which will be commercial waterways and those known as cruising waterways. As he said, the Board will have the power to grant licences to private individuals to make use either for commercial or pleasure purposes of the commercial and cruising waterways. All that the Amendment does—this is why it is difficult to understand the objections—is say that, in using that power to grant licences, the Board should not unreasonably refuse them.
Of course the Minister of State is right to say that paragraph (a) of the Amendment is unnecessary, in that it adds nothing to the existing law. But it is only unnecessary in that it is declaratory of the existing law, and there is no harm in having in a Bill a statement of the existing law.
But the real need for paragraph (b) has surely been confirmed by the Minister of State when he said that there is no inherent right for an individual to use the canals. The right is discretionary in the Board, in which case why should Parliament not state, as the Amendment does, that in using that discretion, it should not unreasonably refuse a licence?
In other words, if an individual who has been refused a licence believes that the Board, in so doing, has acted not on proper commercial grounds but unreasonably, he will be entitled to challenge that refusal. That is all that the Amendment tries to do, and I should have thought that it was a valid Amendment, which improved the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: Does the hon. Gentleman think then, in relation to every nationalised board and service, that we should put into its relevant Statute that it should not unreasonably refuse to perform the service for which it exists—should not, for example, unreasonably refuse to sell coal or railway tickets?

One of the purposes of the White Paper was to make clear the incentives to the Waterways Board to make the waterways commercial and consequently to gain the maximum revenue from pleasure craft. This is what it exists to do.

Mr. Carlisle: Of course I am not saying that every act of every nationalised body should of necessity be subject to the right of appeal. But when a statutory board has the power to refuse the use of the canals to any person or group, especially when we want the canals widely used, it is not unreasonable that Parliament should say that that refusal should not be unreasonable.
I will take the Minister of State up on his examples, of the Coal Board selling coal or the Railways Board railway tickets. That is wholly different. There is a commercial incentive for the Railways Board to sell tickets, just as there is for any shop to sell me any goods, and I do not expect a clause in a contract to say that a particular shop should not unreasonably refuse me any goods—although, incidentally, I think that that is the position in regard to the public house trade.
But we are concerned about the Waterways Board because not only is it the owner of the rights to use the canal: it is also a commercial user of the canals. Therefore, where as it is commercially in the Railways Board's interests to sell as many tickets as possible, it may be in the Waterways Board's interests to try to prevent any other form of competition with pleasure craft on its canals. It is because there is this conflict between the possible commercial interest of the Board and its position as the body granting licences that it is vital to state that it should not have power unreasonably to withhold a licence.
This is nothing new. Any lease which the Minister of State or I might grant to each other for a house will invariably contain a clause about freedom to sublet, which shall not be unreasonably refused. We are saying that a statutory body, given the powers to grant or refuse licences, should not refuse them unreasonably. If it is believed that they are being refused unreasonably, an individual should have the right to take action against the board presumably through the courts, to prove that it had acted outside its powers.

Sir Spencer Summers: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it might be in the commercial interest of the Board to refuse a licence?

Mr. Carlisle: That was the point which I tried to make. As commercial operators, the Board could have a commercial interest in retaining a monopoly and refusing to grant a licence to others wishing to use the canal for the same purpose.

Mr. Swingler: I hope that the hon. Member will give evidence of the Waterways Board preventing people from using the waterways when they have both a financial interest and a financial duty to maximise revenue from the waterways. They have been making a tremendous effort to bring about a greater use of the waterways. I hope that we shall be given the evidence that people have been prevented from using them.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not saying that there is any evidence that that has ever been done. I accept the Minister's statement that they have used their discretion wisely in the past. But that is not the point. We are legislating for the future. I am not making an attack on the general manner in which the Board uses its discretion at present. I accept what the Lord Chancellor said in another place—that to his knowledge it has conducted itself extremely well.
The Minister of State said that to an extent we were going behind the 1962 position. In fact, we are going back to a better position. According to the Minister, until 1962 it was arguable whether the Board had any right to refuse licences. The 1962 Act provided that they could impose any conditions they wished on the grant of a licence. The Amendment says that it is reasonable that that discretion should be fettered only to the extent that they should not be entitled to refuse a licence unreasonably.
The Lord Chancellor said that there was conflict between the two ideas. With respect, I do not think that that is necessarily so. The Board would still be entitled to impose any condition it considered reasonable on the grant of a licence, but if it imposed conditions which were wholly unreasonable and impracticable, then under the Amendment the applicant for the licence would be able to go to court and say, "The Board

is unreasonably refusing me a licence". When assessing the value of the conditions, the court, I take it, would have to take into account that the conditions imposed must not be so unreasonable as to amount to an unreasonable refusal.
I am wholly dissatisfied with the Minister's explanation. This is a small point, but I believe that the Amendment improved the Bill. Because I have been concerned that the Government are not prepared to accept it, I hope that we stand by what was done in another place.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is as refreshing as it is surprising to hear such libertarian sentiments emanating from their Lordships. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) made some temperate and agreeable remarks reflecting what their Lordships in another place had said in putting forward this argument. I am familiar with these arguments of libertarianism because I have been on the left of politics all my life and I know the philosophical argument which can be put forward for the widest amount of personal freedom.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southgate will not take it unkindly if I say that it is constitutionally open to any British citizen to walk into the Ritz Hotel, the Savoy, the Carlton Towers or any other plush establishment. He has the same right as any hon. Member who is a millionaire. But in fact he cannot do so because he cannot discharge the bill.
We are discussing an attempt at this late stage to impose an additional duty on the Waterways Board such as it does not have under the unamended Act of Parliament. I do not want to be dragged down into legal quibbles, but the proposition amounts to this: it imposes an additional obligation on the Waterways Board so that unless it takes this action reasonably it may be open at once to the starting of a legal action, although the duty which it is called upon to discharge under the terms of its contract in granting a licence may be incapable of performance because of the cost involved. That is a valid argument which hon. Members opposite who are lawyers appreciate as much as does anyone else. I am sad sometimes to see this kind of situation exploited for purely sectional interests, when all the merits of the arguments are


in favour of doing something reasonable which does not go beyond what is possible and what is commercially feasible in the circumstances in which the canals are operated.
The canals have been derelict for the best part of 60 years. Ever since the railways started, the canals have been falling into decay. That is a sad reflection on our industrial history which I and many other hon. Members who have a genuine interest in the waterways regret very much. There has been neglect for all these generations.
I speak without apology as a supporter of the Government on this issue. Sometimes I am a little critical of my own Government, but the fact is that in the last four years the Labour Government have done more to restore the canals to some useful purpose than has been done in the last 50 years. It is a little ungenerous or ungallant for hon. Members opposite to throw at the Government the charges which they have thrown at them in the debate.
I want to see the waterways improved for the enjoyment of our young people who are interested, for example, in boating. I have the very best reasons for holding that view. Members of my family are very interested in that form of enjoyment. My son would be very annoyed with me if he were in the gallery listening to my speech. He is probably one of the few people in the country who have navigated a large boat through all the hazards, pitfalls and obstacles from the north, at Lymm dock, to the Thames; he was nearly arrested when he reached the Thames for not having a Thames Conservancy licence.
I know the arguments in favour of the waterways being revived and made useable in many beautiful stretches throughout the country, but it is unrealistic at this time to claim that the waterways should not have this small protection against unreasonable litigation which might be initiated by interested groups of people if the Amendment were passed.

Sir John Foster: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) made an interesting case, but it had nothing to do with the Amendment, which is on a narrow point. It merely states that
…the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence…

The hon. Gentleman said that it was not necessary to state that in the Bill because the Government should have the protection of being able to refuse a licence unreasonably. He said that it would be undignified and ungallant to require the Board to be reasonable. The Minister, on the other hand, argued the matter from the reverse angle and said that if such an Amendment were accepted, similar Amendments would be needed in the Statutes applying to all other nationalised industries to say that they should not be unreasonable in selling tickets, coal, stamps and anything else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out the difference. In this case we are considering the licence of a user, which is a continuing object. It is not like saying that a person should not refuse to grant a licence to cross his land if he has the discretion to do so. We are saying that the discretion in this case should not be exercised unreasonably. The question has no practical similarity to coal, tickets or stamps.
If a man goes into a post office and points to a stamp in the middle of a sheet and says, "Give me that one", it is reasonable that the post office clerk should reply, "No. You must have the one on the edge". The discretion here is one for a continuing use. Although the Minister said that in this case the Board must maximise its profits and would not be unreasonable, he must accept that people have human emotions of prestige and dislike. The person in charge may not like the person who wants a licence. The issuing officer may act unreasonably, and such an unreasonable act would probably have no commercial motive. It is not a sufficient argument to say that a similar provision would be needed for every nationalised industry.

Mr. Swingler: I do not see the difference. In this respect the Waterways Board is in exactly the same position as all the other boards. We are giving them the same discretion. There is the same possibility of the same human unreasonableness in every other board. A railways ticket clerk may not be in good temper and may refuse to sell one customer a ticket. But there is an obligation


here as to the service which the board provides. The Waterways Board must maximise revenue from the use of the country's waterways under its control. That is the incentive to the Board not to be unreasonable. As I explained, we could not put in a provision like this, here and in every Statute, applying to every other nationalised industry.

Sir J. Foster: I agree that such a provision should not be in every such Statute, but the Minister should see the practical nature of the difference. If one is refused a stamp by a post office clerk one can send somebody else in to buy the stamp. The same applies if one is refused coal. If one is applying for a licence for a vessel, on the other hand, one cannot delegate somebody else to put in the application because one is stuck with the name of the vessel. One cannot put on a false beard and apply again for a licence, although one could go in disguise and try again to buy a stamp or some coal.
The same argument applies to the remarks made about one's right in this matter. Whether or not the right existed before, the Amendment merely says that
… the Board shall not unreasonably refuse the issue of a licence …
The Minister is right in saying that it is an alteration of the existing law. At present the discretion can be applied unreasonably, and for this reason the Government are fighting this issue needlessly. They object to the first part of the Amendment because, they say, it is unnecessary. By objecting to the second part the Minister is defending the right of the Board to be unreasonable. He should not bother himself with the question of whether or not such a provision should apply to other nationalised industries. He must say, "We maintain that the Board has every right to act unreasonably" because that is the burden of his argument.
The Amendment is being proposed only because of the possibility of discretion applying unreasonably to the detriment of somebody in a substantial manner. As I explained, this cannot happen in respect of coal or stamps. Either the Minister must continue to place himself in an untenable position and say, "We want the Board to act unreasonably", or he must accept the Amendment.
If we tried to insert a similar provision in the Statute relating to, for example, coal, everyone would say, "That is ridiculous. If we are refused coal we can go somewhere else to buy it." On the other hand, if one is refused a licence to cruise on a waterway or to cross some nationalised land—perhaps from one village to another—one might say that one has been refused permission unreasonably. It is at this point and in this connection—we can leave stamps, coal, tickets and everything else out of it—that we must ensure that the Board's discretion is not applied unreasonably. Even the contracts affecting landlords contain clauses about certain things not being refused unreasonably.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that this had nothing to do with the well-being of canals because they were already defined as cruising and commercial canals with licences issued for both. In this case we are not asking for licences to be issued for people to cruise on canals which have fallen into desuetude. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the efforts of the Labour Government on behalf of the canals, although they had nothing to do with the Amendment. Perhaps it was a good opportunity for him to boost the morale of his party on an achievement. It certainly needs boosting.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to some remarks I made off the cuff. Being an eminent lawyer, he will know that if a right is given to someone in a contract, then one automatically imposes a duty on the other party to the contract. We wish to ensure that we do not impose unreasonable duties on the Waterways Board, bearing in mind the shortage of funds and resources of the Board to make the canals navigable.

Sir J. Foster: I know what is at the back of the hon. Member's mind: he does not trust the lawyers or the courts. He thinks that if the right is given to a person to object to an unreasonable refusal he will bring litigation which is in itself unreasonable. That is his point. He is imposing unreasonable duty on the Board to act reasonably. That is a contradiction in terms. If boards act unreasonably, they should be made to act reasonably.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: There are no canals in my constituency, and although the ability of my constituents to contribute to the progress and prosperity of the country has been gravely damaged by the Bill as a whole, I do not suppose that many of them are directly concerned with the Amendment. But, to me, the absence of this right—of this Amendment in the Bill—is completely repugnant.
The Minister claimed that pleasure craft have never had a right to navigate the canals, and it is certainly true that on some canals, such as, I believe, the Derby Canal, they have not had that right. But his view has been contested bitterly for many years. There are many schools of thought about the question of whether pleasure craft do or do not have the right to navigate. Be that as it may, however it would be a great improvement if they had that right now.
The Minister spoke of commercial freedom. He said that it was important that the, Board should have commercial freedom. What is commercial freedom? It is the freedom to ruin one's competitors if one can. Who are the competitors of the Waterways Board on the canals? They are, very largely, the tenants of the Board. It is very difficult to operate on the canal system without being simultaneously a payer of licence fees to the Board and also a payer of rent to the Board. I do not think that any landlord should be put in the position of being able to ruin his tenants.
One may think that to say that is fanciful and far fetched, but since the Minister turned to the past, let us also turn to the past for a moment. For several years British Waterways ran an enterprise of pleasure craft on the waterways in direct competition with its tenants. This enterprise of British Waterways was consistently making a loss, so British Waterways was using the taxpayers' money in order to drive its own tenants out of business. A body that can do that in the past can not, to my mind, with certainty be trusted not to do it again in the future.
The Minister of State also said, as did other hon. Members, that we can rely on the fairness and good will of the Board. It may very well be that we can, but it is fair to point out that in the past

one could not rely on that fairness and good will. I know of more than one example, and I say it advisedly and I have details, of where the Waterways Board attempted to ruin people who wished to use the waterways—

Mr. Swingler: I really must take up the hon. Member on this point. He is making an extremely damaging attack on the Waterways Board, which has from this House a responsibility to maximise the revenues of the waterways system as a whole. I have spent many years now in the Ministry of Transport trying to get a bigger use of waterways, with, I must say, not very much co-operation from many quarters. But if the hon. Gentleman has evidence to suggest that the Board has not been fulfilling that basic responsibility to administer the waterways so as to raise the maximum revenue, I wish that he would present it to us so that we could go into it.

Mr. Smith: I am speaking of the past, but the Minister's own words illustrate this cleavage. First he spoke of maximised use and then of maximised revenue—and they are not at all the same thing. It is this conflict in the past which has led to difficulties, and the confidence of waterways users in the waterways authorities is a very precarious plant indeed.
If the Minister wishes to maximise the revenue of the waterways, he must surely see that to give those who wish to use them this right and a protection against the tenants of the waterways being driven out of business by the competition of their landlords will inspire confidence and investment. In this way he will maximise his revenues. If he rejects the Amendment, he will simply re-create all the anxieties and suspicions that people have undoubtedly had in the past, and which have in the past prevented people from investing in and using the waterways. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I rise to make a brief contribution in the hope that I may assist the Minister of State to understand that the examples he gave were irrelevant. To produce the selling of a railway ticket as a parallel to the right to navigate a canal is to produce a parallel, the lines of which are just about at right angles. They are totally different kinds of operation.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member must not misquote me. I was talking about the service for which the nationalised boards were brought into existence to provide. Apparently some hon. Members are in possession of evidence which has not been conveyed to me. Some years ago Parliament created the Waterways Board with the duty of providing a service for the benefit of users.

Dr. Winstanley: I listened to the Minister of State with as much care as I hope he will listen to me, and I heard him say that. He said that we could not write into every Act a right of appeal and he quoted certain examples with reference to the selling of coal, railway tickets and so on. Rightly or wrongly—I believe rightly—the users believed that they had a right to navigate the waterways, a right which has subsequently become extinguished. The hon. Gentleman said that of course there is argument about whether the right to navigate was solely concerned with commercial use or could be extended to recreational use. He quoted a hesitantly expressed opinion by the Lord Chancellor, which has not been tested.
Section 17 of the Railways Act, 1873 says:
Every railway company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water of the same so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay.
It is the view of waterways users that this comprehensive right was later supported in the Transport Act, 1962. We understand that with the new measures dividing the waterways into commercial waterways, cruising waterways and the remainder, this right must necessarily be in part extinguished. People understand this and sympathise with it, particularly in view of acts taken in parallel, but we must remember that we preserve this right of appeal when there is the question of closing a railway. Since the users of waterways have lost the right of appeal, they look to some other guarantee that what they regarded as a right shall be protected.
I do not think the Minister of State has any more reason to assume that this would be used wantonly than we would assume that the Waterways Board would withhold licences wantonly. I do not think that is the case, but if he were willing to accept this Amendment it would do a great deal to reassure waterways users about what the future position will be. It would do a great deal to make them understand that the rights they believed they had will continue.

Mr. J. T. Price: These people want that right, whether it be real or imaginary, enshrined in the Bill. In the part of Lancashire which I represent scores of coalmines were closed long before nationalisation was the order of the day. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under private ownership no miner in my division had a right of appeal to any court against losing his employment as a result of a pit closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman so to remind the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), because it is irrelevant to the debate.

Dr. Winstanley: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to go into all the rights which from time to time become extinguished in various parts of the world, we should be here for a very long time. I am concerned solely with this one. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that every effort will be made to allow people to continue to navigate without let or hindrance.

Mr. John Wells: I declare an interest: I am a member of the Council set up by Clause 108. I am not sure whether I am inhibited from speaking, as I notice that my Labour colleague is not in his place at the moment.
There has been an historic clash between the predecessors in business of the Waterways Board and users. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) said that the Board itself might be unreasonable. I do not believe that the present Board would seek to be unreasonable, but there is no doubt that its predecessors in business were just about as unreasonable as they could have been to waterway users and to their tenants.
The whole object of the Advisory Council set up by Clause 108 is to promote good will and good relationships between users and the Board. I believe that this sensible aim will be destroyed if the Lords Amendment is not accepted. Over the past 20 years the Inland Waterways Association has battled for its rights and for the navigation rights of its members. The Minister of State has said that these rights have never existed. I was flabbergasted by that statement. As I do not have a strong team of civil servants sitting in a box behind me to advise me, I cannot turn up some of the cases now. However, I am convinced that many cases have been brought by the Association or by its members. Had these cases not been brought before the courts, the waterways would not be as open as they are today.
I therefore hope that the Minister will recognise the rights of the using public on the waterways. The users think that they have these rights. The courts think that the users have them. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) reminded us of the Act which spells out these rights. Will the Minister confirm whether our Liberal colleague is right? If the hon. Gentleman was right and the courts have upheld users, the Minister is wrong and, no doubt with the best of motives, has been misleading the House.

Mr. Swingler: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not pay full attention to the details. I emphasised that I was not speaking about commercial craft. The controversy about rights over the years was in respect of commercial craft. I was speaking only about pleasure craft. I am advised—this is the best advice available to me—that, generally speaking, there has not been a right of navigation.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Wells: I heard the Minister say that, but. I also heard our Liberal colleague, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), read the relevant part of the Railways Act, 1873, which, as I understood it, did not differentiate between pleasure and commerce. Which is right?
I hope that the Minister will think again. He says that the Board will not be so silly as to be unreasonable. Very well. In that case, let us leave the

Amendment as it stands. It does nobody any harm. If the Board are such sweetly reasonable people and will always be such, let us leave the Amendment there. If, on the other hand, the Board may be unreasonable, let the Amendment remain for that reason.
I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. If his Department's aim is that there should be a happy relationship between user and tenant, it is important that he should. The question of the tenant is of significance here because, if there is no commercial enterprise on the waterways, the building and hiring of boats and the offering of facilities, the waterways will silt up anyway. I suppose that I should declare an interest also as a boat owner. If people are to be encouraged to invest their money in boats, they must be assured of continuity and a definite future. The Minister tells us that they never had these rights. Let us have the matter clear. If the Amendment will do the Minister and his Board no harm, he should accept it.

Mr. Swingler: I deplore the attacks made on the Waterways Board, although I realise that some hon. Members were referring to the past, perhaps to the distant past. I have had a good deal to do with the Waterways Board over the past few years. It has made a tremendouse effort to try to gain new traffic and to encourage the use of the waterways by pleasure craft. This was one of the interests which led up to the White Paper, the publication of which was welcomed so widely in the autumn of last year. There seems to be a good deal of backsliding from that welcome now.
I hope that hon. Members who argue for detailed Amendments, basing their case on a critical attitude to the Waterways Board, will put the Ministry of Transport in possession of any facts, figures and evidence which could show how we could in any way magnify the use of our waterways as a practical proposition. It is a challenge, a challenge to everyone, but certainly a challenge to the Ministry of Transport to see what can be done to arrest the decline, which has been going on over a long time, in the use of waterways. It is a challenge to the Waterways Board. Incidentally, the Waterways Board has a statutory duty


and responsibility to try to encourage and develop the use of waterways in all respects.
The present argument is somewhat on a par with the misunderstandings and the misrepresentations which have occurred throughout on Part VII, and on Clause 104 in particular. The provisions in this Part of the Bill are designed to provide a new sort of régime for our waterways system. I realise that some people do not like it or do not agree with it, but it is done deliberately in this way—by abolishing the confusing system of local Act navigation rights and maintenance obligations and substituting therefor the priorities now set out. In this connection, I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was confusing two things, the question of the maintenance obligations of the Board and the question of usership. The Bill includes the right to require the Board to maintain the commercial and cruising waterways in a condition suitable for use by freight carrying or pleasure cruising craft.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I find it difficult to see what questions of maintenance of the waterways have to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: They were mentioned in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to leave the subject rapidly, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle spoke as if all rights were being swept away, I thought I ought to say what is in the Bill.
The other aspect is the inclusion of in incentive to the Board to maximise revenue from the use of the waterways. I know that on account of past history, there are many hon. Members who constantly wish to tie up the Waterways Board, unlike other boards, in all sorts of special provisions, obligations and impositions. They argue, as the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) argued tonight, that there was something unique about the position of the Waterways Board that distinguished it from all the other Boards which provide services whereby it should not have the right to be unreasonable although, apparently, all the other Boards should have the right to be unreasonable. That was how I understood the hon. and

learned Gentleman's argument. It could not be sustained for two minutes.
That argument demonstrates that many hon. Members opposite are obsessed with the idea of imposing in detail on the Waterways Board more and more things which would not enable it to exercise the judgment, freedom and priorities that it should exercise if it is to get on with the job of implementing the proposals in the White Paper on the waterway system.
This is the choice which we have to make. Either we are to have a Waterways Board which is encouraged to exercise judgment and commercial freedom and which is to get on with the job with a strong sense of priorities, or else we are to have provisions like this Amendment which lay down rules of behaviour in every little detail, as if the Board were children. That is the basis on which we disagree with the Amendment.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Having listened to the debate—my constituency is well involved—I think that the Minister is taking a very narrow point of view on this issue. He is well out of touch with the opinion of the public, who find their freedoms being encroached upon little by little, day by day. They are alarmed and concerned. Seven hundred men do not work on a canal at the weekend cleaning it out for fun. They feel strongly about these things. The Minister should get in touch with the people in the constituencies.

Mr. Swingler: The Board is responsible for over 2,000 miles of waterway and has a staff of under 4,000 people. Therein lies its obligation. I trust that hon. Members who are concerned with the Board's finances will take the matter of its obligations into account in considering what the Board is able to do.
I would expect the hon. Member to agree, on the assumption that he has read our White Paper on the waterway system, that we must have some sort of priority about the future of the waterways system and that, since unlimited funds are not available, it is not possible to rehabilitate all the canals which, over the years, have been allowed to go derelict. If we do not, more canals will simply be allowed to go derelict and to become unusable. That is the present position,


and it has occurred as a result of continuing all these ancient provisions which have existed throughout the continuous decline of the waterway system.

Dr. Winstanley: The Amendment exclusively concerns the waterways which are designated commercial and cruising waterways and which, on the Minister's admission, the Board has a statutory responsibility under the Act to maintain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I really must ask the Minister to confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: We have had a number of speeches in the debate which have gone wide of the Amendment. If I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while, of course, I accept your Ruling—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I dare say we have, but I have asked the Minister in his reply to confine himself to the purposes of the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: In summing up, I merely reiterate that, for the reasons that I stated earlier, we wish the Waterways Board to have the commercial freedom that other nationalised boards have. The rights of users in respect of pleasurecraft have been established in the past by the terms of the licences obtained for the use of such craft. In view of the general reasons that I have stated in support of our view, I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Might I put a question to my hon.. Friend before he sits down? I have listened to the whole debate, and I think I am right in saying that his main fear about accepting the Amendment is that he would expose the Waterways Board to unreasonable litigation. That is understandable. But he has been talking to us about the galaxy of legal talent that he has had on his side advising him in certain directions, and I accept that advice. However, has he not been told of the means which the courts have to prevent—and punish if it happens—unreasonable litigation? Can he tell us why he appears to fear this when the courts have very effective means of dealing with it?

Mr. Swingler: We are not talking here about unreasonable litigation. I am

asking why the Waterways Board should have an obligation imposed on it which is not imposed upon any of the other nationalised boards and which would fetter its discretionary power. With the kind of Board that we have and the principles that we have laid down, there is no reason why its discretion at large should be fettered any more than that of other nationalised boards is.

Mr. Berry: At the beginning of the debate the Minister of State said that he did not expect us to have the debate and to oppose the Government's reaction. I am surprised. Having listened to the debate, he must realise that there are very strong views on this side on this subject. There was considerable discussion in another place, but that was because the discussion in the House of Commons was limited by the Guillotine. It was most important that we should have this debate.
I hoped that in his closing days at the Ministry the Minister would have changed from the very strict Minister that he was during the months in Standing Committee and would show himself a little more human and willing to compromise. But those hopes have not been realised.
My hon. Friends have over and over again demolished the arguments, such as they were, which were used by the Minister of State at the beginning of the debate, and I certainly include in that statement the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). There is very little left of the Minister's original arguments. We have established finally the point about the public rights of use of the waterways. Certainly even if they were not in existence before, I should have thought that we were all agreed that they should exist today. The Minister did not say anything about the dual responsibility of the Board vis-à-vis manager and competitor. I ask him to give an assurance that the Board will treat all users of waterways equally, including its own craft.
We have discussed all these arguments at great length, but I did not hear the Minister make a single point in favour of objecting to the Lords Amendment. The Lords Amendment is eminently reasonable and would be in the interests of all who use the waterways. I advise my hon.


Friends to divide in favour of the Lords Amendment, and in doing so I give an assurance that when we return to office we shall restore those public rights, on which the Minister cast such scorn.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 208.

Division No. 304.]
AYES
[8.59 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
McCann, John


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacDermot, Niall


Archer, Peter
Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Finch, Harold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bence, Cyril
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Ar'hur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bradley, Tom
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brooks, Edwin

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)



Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Haseldine, Norman
Neal, Harold


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Newens, Stan


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Padley, Walter


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Chapman, Donald
Howie, W.
Paget, R. T.


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Park, Trevor


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cronin, John
Hynd, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Dell, Edmund
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dewar, Ronald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ellis, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)




Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Skeffington, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Slater, Joseph
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Small, William
Watkins, David (Consett)
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James
Yates, Victor


Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Swingler, Stephen
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Charles Grey.


Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Nott, John


Bessell, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Biffen, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Hay, John
Pounder, Rafton


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Bryan, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Buchanan Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hooson, Emlyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hordern, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, Richard
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sharples, Richard


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, Sir William


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William







Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Woodnutt, Mark



Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Wright, Esmond
Mr. Hector Monro and


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Younger, Hn. George

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "B"

SECTION 104 NOT TO AFFECT ATTORNEY GENERAL V. WATERWAYS BOARD

Lords Amendment No. 129: In page 141, line 27, at end insert new Clause ''B":
B. No provision of section 104 of this Act in so far as it operates to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts or to modify the public rights of navigation or the duty of the Board as regards maintenance shall apply to proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings:
Provided that on the determination of those proceedings this section shall cease to have effect save for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any order made in the proceedings.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment involves the addition to Part VII of the Bill of a new Clause relating to certain current litigation about two canals on the Board's system, namely the Ashton Canal and the lower Peak Forest Canal.
I know there are a number of hon. Members who have constituency interests in this. First of all, a word about the canals. The Ashton Canal is situated in or near Ashton-under-Lyne, and is about six and three quarter miles long. It has suffered from mining subsidence over a long period of time, and is likely to suffer this still further. The difficulties of maintenance here have been aggravated by considerable dumping of rubbish and vandalism, especially in the industrial areas through which the canal passes. The Waterways Board estimate that the gross cost of restoring this canal to cruising standards would be in the region of £195,000.
The other canal, the lower Peak Forest Canal, runs for about eight miles from

the top of the Marple Locks to its junction with the Ashton Canal at Dukenfield near to Ashton-under-Lyne. As many hon. Members will know, this canal becomes less attractive as it approaches the industrial areas round Manchester. The Marple flight of 16 locks is at present impassable and the Board estimate that the repair of these locks alone would cost about £22,500. To repair the whole eight mile length to cruising standards, including the lock repairs, would cost in the region of £35,000.

That is the situation of these canals, about which litigation was begun shortly after the Transport Bill was introduced into this House. I make no point about that, but it is a fact that litigation in respect of the Ashton-under-Lyne Canal was commenced after the provisions of this Bill with respect to waterways were known and had been published.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is purely fortuitous that the action was begun after the publication of the Bill and that there is a matter of merely five days involved? I hope that he will not make a great deal of this.

Mr. Swingler: I am just notifying the House of the historical fact. As my hon. Friend says, it was a matter of a few days after the presentation of the Bill to the House that litigation was commenced.
The reason I rise to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords, is on the merits of the case. First, it is because we see no reason why these two canals should be singled out from all the rest in the canal system for specially favourable treatment. The House has been discussing the application of the new principles to the canal system, the introduction of the three categories—commercial, cruising, and remainder.
9.15 p.m.
Secondly, notwithstanding the litigation, there are discussions going on between a number of interested people and the Board about these canals. There has been a meeting in the last few days to see what can be done. A solution to the problem may emerge as a result of the discussions now in progress. But it was


made plain to the British Waterways Board at the recent meeting that three out of the four local authorities through whose area the Ashton Canal runs, including the Corporation of Manchester, do not want the Ashton Canal to be retained as a navigation. The Board was also gig en reason to believe at the same meeting that the fourth council through whose area the Ashton Canal runs holds the same opinion.
I should like to repeat on behalf of my right hon. Friend the undertaking which was stated in another place. The Board will, during a period of three years from the coming into force of Part VII of the Bill, take no positive action concerning these two canals without Ministerial consent which would make their ultimate restoration impossible. The three-year interim period will give the local authorities and other interested bodies a full opportunity to put forward proposals either for restoring these waterways or possibly for taking them over. Hon. Members will be aware that provision is already made in Part VII of the Bill for local authorities and other bodies, by agreement with the Board, to take over waterways which are not included in the commercial or cruising networks. In addition, provision is made in Clause 110 for the local authorities to give financial asistance for the restoration or maintenance of waterways. In this way, adequate provision has been made to enable local initiative and local finance to be used with a view to restoring waterways if a suitable scheme can be agreed by all concerned.
It is by those methods that we think that the issue of the Ashton-under-Lyne and lower Peak Forest Canals should be dealt with. Therefore, we cannot agree that they should be put in an exceptional position.

Mr. Berry: Again, I am very sorry that the Government have not seen the wisdom of the Lords Amendment and are reluctant to accept it. It is an important Amendment. Although my hon. Friends and I tabled Amendments to this effect on Report and in Committee, they were not reached because of the Guillotine. It is therefore important to go into the position with some care so that hon. Members may fully understand it.
The Minister of State has already explained the situation of the two canals.

The existing legal position is that under the original local Acts covering the canals and Section 17 of the Regulation of the Railways Act, 1873, which once again is the Acts to which we must refer, public rights of navigation apply to the two canals, and there is a duty on the waterways authority, which in this case is the British Waterways Board, to maintain those canals.
In 1961 some people in the area near where those canals flow became dissatisfied with the condition of the two canals. They felt that the British Waterways Board was not maintaining them in a way in which it was bound under Statute to do. For three years discussions took place, until in November, 1964, a meeting was held in which many local authorities and public bodies took part, and it was decided that action must be taken. A sub-committee was appointed to consider the various possibilities.
During 1965 meetings took place, solicitors were approached and the legal position was looked into. In November of that year a letter for action against the Waterways Board was written, but the solicitor of the Board rejected it. After further inquiries had been made, it became clear, towards the end of 1966, that their advice was that action could be brought against the Waterways Board, and it was decided to sue.
During 1967 the various legal formalities, which in a case like this are extremely complicated and inevitably very lengthy, took place, and that is why it was not until December, 1967, that the papers were sent to the London agent with instructions to apply for the fiat of the Attorney-General.
I am surprised that the Minister of State should again today have tried to make a point about the Transport Bill being published before this step was taken. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) quite rightly took him up on that. It is a minor point, and I am surprised that the Minister of State should have thought it was worthy of bringing up in this serious debate.
The Attorney-General was asked for his fiat in December last year. He first referred the case back because he was not sure whether, in view of the Transport Bill, it was right to proceed with the litigation. Opinion from counsel was obtained, he thought about it again, and


on 24th January this year he granted his fiat.
The learned Lord Chancellor, in another place, suggested that the grant of the fiat was a matter of very minor importance. I have taken advice on this, and I have the decision of Lord Justice Pearce in the case of the Attorney-General v. Harris, 1961, in which he said:
The bringing of the proceedings has shown that in the opinion of the Attorney-General the acts warrant an injunction. This opinion, though ex parte, will obviously carry weight with the court. Where, as in the present case, deliberate and still continuing breaches of the law have been proved, the court will in the exercise of its discretion normally grant an injunction, unless after hearing both sides it comes to the conclusion that the matter is too trivial …
That is in another case completely different from this one, but it refutes the suggestion that the Attorney-General's fiat is a minor matter and shows that his granting it means that the case has considerable importance.
Throughout this year meetings have been held. In one case, on 30th April this year, a delegation representing 20 or so local authorities and three hon. Members of this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Rose), attended upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to discuss this. As the year has gone on, more attempts have been made to expedite this case and to persuade the Government either to drop this bit of the Bill or to accept in principle the Amendment which we are discussing. But, in the House, we could not discuss this part of the Bill during the summer. When it went to another place, their Lordships moved an Amendment, and the Lord Chancellor disagreed with it.
Notwithstanding, all this time, the local interest in the area was continuing, as hon. Members from the area will confirm. For example, on the weekend of 21st September this year—only three or four weeks ago—about 600 volunteers from all parts of the country spent their weekend cleaning about a mile and a quarter of the Ashton Canal at their own cost, and took out a tremendous amount

of rubbish. This was fully reported in The Times, and it shows how strong is the desire to keep waterways like this in existence.
Then the House of Lords discussed it again and, on 8th October, passed this Amendment. At the same time, the discussions between the two sides had been continuing. There had been further meetings, culminating in the one last week which the Minister of State mentioned.
What are the two alternatives now? Either these canals must be restored or they must be abandoned, which, of course, includes filling them in. On the cost of those two alternatives there is some dispute. The Government say that it would cost £190,000, according to the Minister of State, to restore the Ashton Canal to cruising standard. He has not given a figure for the cost of filling it in. I understand that the Coal Board may contribute towards that.
The Inland Waterways Association—to repeat what I said earlier—has assisted me considerably in my work over this part of the Bill, but it is a completely non-party organisation, which has been at the disposal of hon. Members of all parties. Any information which I have obtained from it has been equally available to all other hon. Members. It works in the interests of the waterways and those who use them, and that is all. That Association says that it would cost £40,000 to restore these canals. It has also made a rough forecast of the sum needed to fill in, including piping, which it says could not be less than £500,000 and might be nearer £1 million. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those two figures, we can at least agree that there is a vast difference between them.
To come to last week's meeting, what the Minister of State did not mention was that there is now, and was at that meeting, an offer before the Waterways Board from the various parties concerned to take over the waterways at a figure of £7,000 multiplied ten times—

Mr. Swingler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Berry: I am surprised that the Minister of State shakes his head.

Mr. Swingler: We may be talking about different things. The Waterways Board has been trying to reach agreement with the riparian local authorities. I


know that there has been an exchange of correspondence with other local authorities as well, but as I said my information is that three out of the four major riparian authorities are not in favour of the restoration of the canal. That is our information from the Board.

Mr. Berry: I am not disputing that information, but I suggest that interest in the waterways anywhere is not confined only to the riparian authorities. Indeed, we moved an Amendment in Committee about the interests of other local authorities nearby, whose inhabitants use the waterways. The Minister then resisted it, but in another place it has been changed, and one of the Amendments with which we are agreeing this evening is on precisely that point.
9.30 p.m.
There are 18 local authorities in this offer, although I appreciate that the canals do not run through the territory of most of them. But they are concerned because people living in their authorities would like to use the waterways.
I am surprised that the Minister has not referred to this offer. The meeting was held last Wednesday just after the House of Lords had finished their discussions of the Bill, and I thought that that was the moment at which those who attended the meeting should be allowed to express their views. There were some legal representatives of the authorities concerned who expected to have the chance to put their views, but the Chairman of the Waterways Board declined to allow them to remain at the meeting even though the Waterways Board solicitor was there and remained there.

Mr. Swingler: I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding, but my information is that the Waterways Board initiated the meeting deliberately with the riparian authorities to see whether in the first place agreement could be reached with them. We are entirely in favour of local authorities outside the area being involved in any agreement, but it is difficult to make progress without the consent of the local authorities through whose territories the canals pass. In the first place, therefore, the initiative had to be to try to reach agreement with the riparian authorities.

Mr. Berry: I do not follow that. I should have thought that the Waterways Board wished to dispose of these lengths of waterways if it could find other local authorities and other people prepared to take them over. They have quite rightly been described in rather disparaging terms. Surely the Board wants someone to take them off its hands for ever, saving it the cost of upkeep. I should have thought that it would jump at the idea instead of exploring only the position of local authorities who, as they must have known already, would not undertake the responsibility. They could have had first one meeting and then another.
Time for this offer is running out. The offer could not apply after the Bill becomes law because the actions would have ceased. These people are anxious to settle it now before the Bill becomes law. Surely the Waterways Board should have treated the matter rather more urgently than seemed to be the case at the meeting last week.
Does the Board intend to pay to fill in and pipe these two canals? If so, the Minister surely must be able to tell us what the cost will he. I gave a figure between £500,000 and £1 million. Is that figure correct? Is it not time that the Minister gave a figure?
In another place on 8th October the Lord Chancellor unfairly raised the question of the timing of various stages of the action. Having referred to correspondence, he said,
The next thing the Board heard was that after the Bill had been introduced a writ was issued.
I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House. There was so much interest in the subject among those concerned with waterways that the Board must have known what was going on. When the Bill was introduced it must have been known that a writ also was in the offing. The Lord Chancellor continued,
But the fact is that the action had not started, and they did not even apply for the Attorney-General's fiat which has to precede the issue of a writ, until after Vie Bill had been introduced.
A little later he tried to argue the rights and wrongs of passing legislation affecting this action and said that there
… is no reason why Parliament should not pass legislation which is in the public interest …


That is the least doubtful point. Some hon. Members consider that parts of the Bill are in the public interest while others are not. We agree to differ. He should not have been so categorical. Later he said:
… it would surely be absurd to preserve the old régime in relation to these two unnavigable canals alone.
Why are these two canals unnavigable? That is what this case is all about. He went on:
The House should, therefore, reject this Amendment which seeks to preserve the old régime for two lengths, totalling about 15 miles out of 2,000 miles of nationalised inland waterways.
What is wrong with taking an interest in 15 miles of waterways? They are as important as any other length for those who want to use them. Following that argument, he said:
That, it is submitted, is a sound basis, and the mere fact that after the Bill was introduced this action was started is not a good reason for making an exception for these two canals".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086–9.]
That argument no longer holds water.
I still hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. They should enable this case to be brought. It is not for me or any of us to judge who will win. We should merely allow the case to be brought so that justice may be seen to be done. There are no political grounds involved. On economic grounds, those who are prepared to spend their money on these waterways should be allowed to do so, and so save the Board from a continuing drain on its resources. On amenity grounds, the canals should certainly be restored. On local grounds it is clear that the local authorities involved wish to use the canals again. That has been shown clearly. Whether or not the offer is accepted is not the point. The point is that this action has been prepared for many years and many people have shown great concern about the condition of these waterways. Regardless of the Bill, the time has come when these people should have the right to have justice done and for the courts to judge whether or not these stretches should once again become part of the cruising waterways of this country.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I have a special interest in

this matter, being Chairman of the North-West Sports Council and having previously participated in a deputation to the Ministry. This problem is of limited application. It has been suggested that if the Government were to yield in this case they would have to do the same in every other case, but all other cases are not the same as this one. In this event there is a strong body of opinion concerned about the future of these waterways. A large number of people are now participating voluntarily in an enormous amount of work for the restoration of the canal. I recall going there and seeing the work being done by youngsters on the lock gates at Marple. The work is a tribute to them, particularly since they gave up much of their leisure time to do it. There is no question of Parliament deciding the wrongs and rights of the issue if the Amendment were accepted. It would only result in the courts being free to decide the issues involved.
Faced with a problem of this sort, it seems wrong that a three-line Whip should restrict hon. Members on what is in no sense a political matter. It is very much a local and legal one. No question of confidence in the Government or in a political policy arises. This is a local matter of some importance to those concerned with the provision of amenities in the North-West, and I resent the imposition of a three-line Whip on this occasion.
A matter of principle is involved. It is dangerous for Parliament to pass legislation after the initiation of legal proceedings. It is a quibble to talk of the five days' interval, because these proceedings were then pending. A great deal of time, trouble, energy and expense goes into preparing proceedings as complex as these. If legislation is passed, the expenditure involved in preparation is lost, because these proceedings are started on the assumption that the plaintiffs will win and will therefore get their costs. Parliament suddently intervenes at this stage, and all that work and expenditure are of no avail. I do not say that there are not cases in which Parliament may intervene, but I do not think that this is a case of such public importance that Parliament should intervene to frustrate the workings of justice.
It is said that £195,000 would be required for the restoration of this stretch of waterway, but it has not been acknowledged that the local authorities concerned have already pledged themselves, so I understand, to make up any difference between the amount which the Waterways Board is prepared to spend in any case and the sum of £195,000 that has been mentioned. All this will frustrate the tremendous amount of voluntary work, which is so good to behold, by so many people in this area.
It is only because of failure to observe the statutory obligation that we face this situation at all. This issue must be decided by the courts, if that is not done, what we are doing is legislating retroactively with regard to an obligation which was at that time on the Waterways Board and which will be removed, not in 1968 but in respect of an obligation which existed before then.
The Ashton Canal and the Peak Forest Canal do not appear in Schedule 12, and because of past neglect, now compounded by this legislation, it looks to me as though the people of the North-West Region will be deprived of this amenity. I stress the value of this amenity, not only to those living in the area or above it or immediately adjacent to it but to those in my constituency and in the conurbation of Manchester who are increasingly able, because of the motor car, to have access to the countryside and enjoy their leisure time in such areas as this. As well as sailing in a boat, there are other ways of enjoying a canal, such as walking along the towpath or angling, as one sees on this stretch. In an area where there is as much dereliction as we have there we want to be a little adventurous and visionary in looking at the few natural amenity possibilities there are in the North-West, and to see that when we have these we do not despoil them or do away with them, but develop them for the generations to come.
I once said, and I shall repeat it in spite of the attitude of the Manchester Corporation, that, strange as it may sound today, I should have liked to have seen the Ashton Canal running through the heart of Manchester, with a marina where one could moor boats, and going on to the Peak Forest where the amenity there could also be enjoyed. This mat-

ters, because we in this party have always said that we are concerned about the quality of life for the people. We remember the famous pamphlet, "Leisure for Living", and if we really believe in that we have to provide these things which, as people's leisure increases, will become more and more important.
This is a matter of some principle and importance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done so well in pioneering this excellent Bill through Parliament, will think again about this Clause, and will realise that there are many hon. Members on both sides who are concerned about this amenity and the legal principle involved in what is essentially retroactive legislation.

9.45 p.m.

Sir A. V. Harvey: My constituency of Macclesfield is directly involved with these canals. I went with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on the delegation to see the Minister of State. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has made a very constructive speech in which he referred to the amenities of the Ashton Canal. The North-west needs such amenities. It is an enormous area with a population of 4 million and much of the area is very drab.
When the Minister of State opened the debate he did not do the subject justice. He should communicate with some of his hon. Friends who come from this area, or should go there to find local opinion about it. There is evidence of strong feeling on this matter in the North-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) who also made a very constructive speech, understands this problem in detail. The Inland Waterways Association's excellent briefs have been open to all hon. Members. This is not a party issue, although there is a three-line Whip today.
Not an enormous sum is involved, but many hundreds of thousands of people are concerned about this matter. The Inland Waterways Association is one of 30 plaintiffs whose number includes 18 local authorities which are involved in an action in which I understand the Attorney-General, on behalf of the public, is sueing the Waterways Board and alleging that it has failed in its statutory


duty to maintain the Ashton and Lower Peak Forest Canals. Part VII of the Bill has the effect of repealing the law on which the action is founded. Attempts were made to amend the Bill, but they were prevented by the Guillotine from being debated in this House.
The Minister of State has referred to five days, but I am not interested in the five days interval. I am interested in the fact that the House was not able to debate this matter. I am not a lawyer, but I consider that the House of Commons ought not to be playing the rôle of the courts which, so far as I can see, is what is happening tonight. On 8th October the Bill was amended in another place. There should be an opportunity to prove the case of the Waterways Association. Many matters are in dispute, not only legal matters. For example, the restoration of the canal, it is said, will cost approximately £200,000, but the Association says that it would cost £40,000. There is a wide gap there. To fill in and pipe six and a quarter miles would cost £750.

Mr. Mapp: Several of us live in the neighbourhood and can judge the usage of the canal, if not of the local agitation. Can the hon. Member say if the figure of £40,000 is supported by professional opinion?

Sir A. V. Harvey: It may be £60,000. I am not in a position to say, but it certainly is not so much as £200,000. No doubt, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) will make a contribution to the debate if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
To fill in and pipe six and a quarter miles would cost at least £750,000. The Board has undertaken, through the Lord Chancellor, not to commence redevelopment of the waterway for three years. That will further increase the cost to the Board. The Board has received, or is entitled to, compensation by the Coal Board. It suggests £200,000 as the cost of restoration if the action proceeds to trial and succeeds. The Inland Waterways Association is prepared to make itself responsible for restoration of the canal to a navigable condition. In so far as it exceeds the sum to which the Board is committed, the Association would welcome participation of the Board in a consortium, but would wish

the consortium to take over the waterway entirely. It would indemnify the Board against all liability on payment by the Board of a capital sum at, say, 10 years purchase of the net annual deficit.
If the deficit cannot be immediately calculated as agreed, then it could be determined by arbitration. The Association's offer is conditional on any arrangement giving it control of expenditure it is prepared to incur. It would also require the benefit of subsidence claim to be assigned to the consortium or any payment which has been received to be made over to the consortium.
I ask the Minister of State to have second thoughts about the matter. It is very complicated. Whatever the exact figures are, the case affects hundreds of thousands of people. The Press has reported that 700 volunteers are clearing part of the canal of motor cars, prams, and so on, in their spare time, in pouring rain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has just handed me some notes stating that the Ashton Canal figure is £41,000 and the Lower Peak Forest Canal £29,000. These are contractors' costings, if it is of any interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, East.
I hope that before the debate ends the Minister of State will give the House a real assurance that the matter will be gone into further to see that it can follow the normal course.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on their speeches. I think that they have made the case and that it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to address the House. Nevertheless, there are one or two points which should be spelled out and one or two points which should be reiterated. The history of this dispute was outlined by the hon. Member for Southgate and I will not weary the House by repeating it. I want to give the House details of more recent events.
Mention has been made of a meeting which took place on Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that a solution may emerge from this meeting. This was the impression given in the other place on 8th October


when the Lord Chancellor quoted a letter from the Chairman of the Board. I hope that the House will bear with me whilst I read part of this letter, because I think that it is very important. This is the assurance which the Lord Chancellor gave Members of the other place in quoting from the letter:
My Board feel strongly that in the impending new circumstances the time has now come when a fresh look should be taken at this hitherto intractable problem. My Chairman, Sir Frank Price, is arranging to visit the Ashton Canal on Wednesday, October 16, and in the afternoon he would very much like to hold an informal exploratory meeting with the local authorities directly concerned. The meeting is being arranged at the Town Hall, Manchester."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1088.]
The impression which I am sure that hon. Members will draw from that letter is that the Board was acting in a very conciliatory way and attempting to bring about a solution acceptable to all interested parties. We gain an entirely different impression from the meeting. We learn that about 18 local authorities which are not riparian authorities were excluded from the meeting. This partly indicates a conciliatory attitude. The legal adviser to these 18 authorities was also excluded.
At the meeting there was no mention of the proposals which were contained in the plaintiffs' letter dated 9th October. This letter, written by the plaintiffs in a very conciliatory way, forms the basis of a compromise which I think would be satisfactory both to the Board and to the amenity and local authority interests. It is significant that no consideration was given to the letter. I should like my hon. Friend to say a little more about how he thinks a solution will emerge in view of the Board's present attitude. I shall quote one paragraph from the letter. There has been reference to it already, but the House should know the precise terms of the agreement:
What our clients and those associated with them are prepared to do is to make themselves responsible for the restoration of the canal to navigable condition and to meet the cost of restoration in so far as it exceeds the sum to which the Board are in any event committed.
In other words, there is a clear indication of a realistic approach by the local authorities: they know that the Board has considerable demands on available

funds and they are not committing it to any sums in excess of its present commitment. But here is the nub of the problem. There seems to be some dispute about the extent of the Board's commitment. On the one hand, I am told that some of the local authorities feel that the Board will meet the cost of fill-in, while, on the other hand, the Board feels that the local authorities will meet the cost of fill-in. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will state categorically whose responsibility it is.
We have heard already today that the somewhat unhelpful attitude taken by the three local authorities Cheshire, Lancashire and Manchester would, perhaps, be a little different if they were called upon or required to meet part of the cost of fill-in. We have had some details of the cost of fill-in. It is an appreciable sum, and the House should know what the sums of money involved are about which the three authorities are concerned. The Rochdale Canal was closed in 1952. I am informed that it is 2¾ miles long, and I have had quoted to me the astronomical figure of £430,000 for fill-in. I am told that Manchester has declined to do it because of the astronomical cost. That is purely an estimate, but we have some actual figures. The cost of fill-in in Glasgow of the rather wide Monkland Canal, 2½ miles long, was £320,000 over that length. We have heard that the cost of fill-in in respect of the Ashton Canal is £100,000 per mile and the total cost, given that the estimate is accurate, is over £600,000.
These figures should be compared with the estimates produced by the two interested parties. There is a disparity between the two sets of figures, but I think that it is easy to explain. For the Lower Peak Forest Canal the Board's estimate is £35,000 and the authorities' estimate is £29,000. For the Ashton Canal the disparity is rather greater: £195,000 from the Board and £41,000 from the amenity societies and local authorities. The disparity here is to be accounted for by reference to the high labour cost which the Board has taken into account. As has been explained, a great deal of the labour will be provided by volunteers. My hon. Friend the


Minister of State cannot ignore the evidence put to him from both sides of the House showing that there are many people who willingly sacrifice their weekends to undertake this rather uncomfortable task. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has ever done it. I have, on the Bucksworth Basin, and I know that is not a very pleasant way of spending a Sunday afternoon.
However, as I say, many people are prepared to undertake this work. The cost of labour is very high. I put it to my hon. Friend, therefore, that, although there may be a slight underestimate on the part of the local authorities and amenity societies, the sums involved are nowhere near, on the one hand, £195,000 or £35,000, on the other.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept that we should in all that we do in the House and in our legislation attempt to maximise the return to the community. If the Board were prepared to enter into the sort of agreement which is outlined in the letter, the return to the community would be far greater than by undertaking fill-in, whether paid for by the local authorities or by the Waterways Board.
I accept that the Amendment may not be as judiciously worded as it might be and that there are flaws in it, but I put it to the Minister that, if it is allowed to stand, the Waterways Board will be likely to adopt a more conciliatory approach in relation to the very reasonable approaches which have been put to it than it has been so far.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

TRANSPORT BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Jackson: I am about to conclude Mr. Speaker. My case, which I put to my hon. Friend in all sincerity, is that

if the Amendment is allowed to stand, the Waterways Board will adopt a much more reasonable approach than it has done hitherto. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Board is not taking this matter seriously.
Assurance has been given of a three-year moratorium and that nothing will be done to prevent restoration, but there has been no commitment on the part of the Board to enter into meaningful and realistic negotiations with the local authorities concerned. The fact that so many local authorities were excluded from the meetings suggests to me, as, I am sure, it does to other hon. Members, that the Board is not serious in intention.
There is another point. My hon. Friend implies that the Board intends to take this matter seriously. Why, therefore, has it not undertaken consultations with the advisory council which has been set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who is a member of that council, reassures me that there have been no discussions with it on this question. Therefore, the impression which I am given is that the Board does not intend business. With legal action hanging over its head, I feel that it would get around a table with the parties and undertake meaningful negotiations. If the House defeats the Amendment, I have no such confidence that it will do so.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I hope that the House will forgive me if I break into the merits of the Bill. As we are on an entirely non-party political point, perhaps I may be excused for doing so.
I support with all the warmth I can the speeches from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in what they have said tonight to the Minister of State. I know the Minister of State, and I know his great interest in the matter. I know that the former Parliamentary Secretary made it, one might say, almost his life's task to understand the inland waterway system and how it works. Everything that needs to be known about this problem is known in the Ministry.
I have been steeped in the problem of the Ashton Canal and the Macclesfield


Canal and The High Peak for years, ever since I was on the Parham Committee. It has always been a great bone of contention. I hoped that when the new Waterways Board was formed under the 1962 Act, it would take a more realistic view of the problem than it appears to be doing.
I am very disappointed in the attitude of the City Fathers of Manchester. If ever a gift was given to them to make their city beautiful, it is to adopt the Ashton Canal and make it something of which the whole of Manchester—indeed, the whole of North-West England—might be proud. It could be done at a very reasonable figure.
I know that the Minister means to do the right thing and that he understands these problems, but he has put forward the wrong idea to us this evening. Nothing has been done about these two canals. They have been festering, particularly the Ashton Canal, for a very long time. Three years is neither here nor there. On what the Minister has put to us tonight, I cannot see that anything serious will happen. I should like to hear him say that he and his Ministry will ensure that something positive is clone in the course of the next three years, not that they will simply stand by and wait for the three years to run out, when, as I understand it, the Waterways Board will be able to do what it likes. It would be a great scandal. The Marple Flight is one of the great gems of British canal architecture. It is all part of the "Cheshire ring", a through route, part of something which will be of the utmost advantage to the amenity of the country for many years to come. I most earnestly beg the Minister to have very serious second thoughts about this"

Mr. W. S. Hilton: One of the tragedies of this situation, which I think the Minister of State appreciates, is that so much acrimony has arisen over a situation in which two groups of people are trying to do their best to consider the future of an amenity, situated in a particular area perhaps, but one which would be enjoyed by everybody who has ever used the canals for holidays or any other pleasure purpose.
It has been suggested that the timing of the action taken by those interested in the preservation of the Peak Forest

and Ashton Canals was suspect in that it happened after the publication of the Bill. But I can assure the Minister that the Inland Waterways Group and interested local authorities had been working on the matter for almost three years beforehand. I believe that the timing was entirely fortuitous and that no sharp practice was intended.
I realise why the Board tried to meet only the riparian authorities initially. It has in the first place to meet the authorities which are primarily interested. However, I ask the Minister of State not to give such great weight to the fact that three out of four of the local authorities immediately concerned say that the canal ought to be filled in. He should examine the reason why they made this statement. I think he would find that it was based purely on what they believe to be the financial grounds involved; grounds which might not exist. They believe that if the canals are filled in, no on-costs would fall—

Mr. Mapp: I assure my hon. Friend that in general terms the City of Manchester and the two counties are apprehensive about the £ s. d., but a greater fact is that some parts of the canals go through a very heavily congested part of the City of Manchester and neighbouring authorities. The loss of child life in particular is one of the most predominant reasons why the City of Manchester and neighbouring authorities are very apprehensive about canals which are not used.

Mr. Hilton: What we are trying to get across is that if the canals are used in the correct way, instead of children losing their lives the canals will give many years of sport, pleasure and considerable enjoyment for childrent now and in the future. The financial aspect has been dealt with a great deal, and I do not intend to go into it intensively. Some authorities may believe that filling in would relieve them of financial responsibility in the future. I do not think this is so. My experience of filling in is that often it is the local authority which is left ultimately with the burden, and the Waterways Board does not bear it.
I am trying to speak objectively on this matter. After all, the Bethnal Green branch of the Grand Union Canal is a long distance from the canals about


which we are speaking, and I have no vested interest in them! I am sorry that the Government find themselves in the position of appearing to be obstructive. The future of the canals was on a razor edge for many years and over a period when the Conservative Party was in power. It was this Government that guaranteed the life of the canals for cruising. That is why I feel sad that the Government should now appear to be obstructive. It should never be forgotten that we owe a debt of gratitude to the present Government for the fact that the canals are guaranteed for cruising and for general enjoyment.
My hon. Friend asked how it was that the Inland Waterways Association and others had discriminated in favour of these canals. But this is not a sudden infatuation with them. When these canals were put into the "remainder" category originally, there was an immediate objection and an attempt to get them out of it into the "cruising" section. There have been continuing attempts to get these canals brought into the cruising category.
They could form part of the cruising ring. Anyone who has cruised on our canal system knows how valuable to enjoyment such cruising is. I have good cause to know this because for some years I have cruised regularly on our canals, obeying the injunctions of several Chancellors to avoid holidays abroad!
I think that my hon. Friend was being sincere when he said that there would be a three year moratorium on anything being done which might prevent these canals being restored and in saying that, during that period, he hoped that the various authorities would discuss the future of these canals with a view to a decision being reached on the best way in which they could be used. This is really all we have been trying to do for a long time. If he feels like that, in principle then he does not differ from any of us. In view of this he should have another look at the question.

Dr. Winstanley: I am sorry to detain the House on this matter but it lies at the heart of my constituency and is one about which my constituents are worried and concerned. The part of the canals

we are considering—the Marple flight of locks—is in the centre of my constituency and a great deal of work has been done on the locks by my constituents. The canals reach through Bredbury and Romiley in part of my constituency and the Bredbury and Romiley Urban District Council was an organiser of these proceedings.
The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has given the full history of the matter and I want to move on to other matters, particularly to underline the excellent speeches of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), both of whom accompanied me on a deputation with representatives of 17 local authorities to the Ministry. I underline everything they said, as well as everything said by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), who has had so long and distinguished an association with the cause of the preservation of our waterways.
I do not want to deal with legal matters but to bring us away from the dusty atmosphere of counsel's chambers into the open. We are talking of a ring of canals made up of the Bridgwater Canal and the Rochdale Canal—which are private and therefore not the concern of the Board—the Trent and Mersey Canal, the Macclesfield Canal and the Lower Peak Forest Canal, altogether making a ring of 110 miles of navigable waterways through some of the most beautiful countryside in England, including beautiful parts of Cheshire and Derbyshire.
Yet this ring of waterways is immediately adjacent to one of the largest industrial conurbations in the world, whose enormous population is desperate for open air for leisure and recreation. What has happened to the ring? A small section of it—seven miles—has become unnavigable in parts. But the effect is that the whole circuit is unnavigable as a circuit. One can go round the circuit for 100 miles and must then go back. The opening up of the small part now unnavigable would be of immense value to users. We are talking not only about boat users and the people who boat. People benefit from canals in many ways—fishermen, people who walk by canals, people who ride horses along the towpaths, people who canoe, and so on.
10.15 p.m.
If we allow the canal to become un-navigable and if the locks are not used and there is no circulation of water, the canal will become derelict in other ways and unsuitable for other pursuits like fishing, because it will become overgrown. That aspect of the matter has also to be considered. As has been emphasised, we are not considering merely whether a small section is put in order, or whether nothing is done. If we do not put it in order, we shall have to do an immense job of filling in what is becoming a dangerous section of canal, as the Minister acknowledges.
But we have to do something else, because as long as that small section remains closed, the whole ring will remain closed, and if the whole ring remains closed and there is no movement of water round the ring and through the various locks, the cost of the maintenance of the remainder will increase and increase. Therefore, we would probably be making a considerable economy in maintenance by opening up this small area which the Waterways Board already has an obligation to maintain.
I ask the Minister to regard this not as a tiny local matter, but as a matter of immense importance to people living in an industrial area and who would have the opportunity for recreational activities of many kinds. Incidentally—and this should commend our proposal to him—they would be taken away from the overcrowded roads in the area.
We have been asked why these two canals should be singled out for special treatment. This was the argument of the Lord Chancellor in the debate in another place when he said:
The only reason, as I understand it, for singling out these two canals is the pending litigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086.]
That is not correct. These canals are unique in that they form the only stretch which was navigable in 1961 and which has not been maintained. There is no shadow of doubt about their having been designated as navigable and if they were navigable, they would now appear in the Schedule and there would be no argument.
The Minister has said that at least we shall have this moratorium of three years while there are discussions between

the local authorities and the Waterways Board. If he had added that there would be an interval while the advice of the Advisory Council was sought, we would have accepted that as a more realistic assurance, because we are dealing with many people who have been waging this campaign for many years. They have tried to do so by many methods. They sought opportunities to put the canals in order themselves. They organised teams of workers, but they were frustrated, because at that time the Board would not allow them to do the work voluntarily. They pushed and pushed and in the end 18 local authorities and many other bodies came together and started this litigation. If they were to be frustrated at this eleventh hour, they would be desperately disappointed. They are people who have worked hard and who are working for something for which we know the Minister, too, is working.
A perfectly reasonable and conciliatory offer has been made which will allow people to discuss this matter against the background of the previous situation. These canals have not been singled out for special treatment and nor would this establish a precedent for similar treatment to be given to other canals. We merely say that this ring of 110 miles of waterway should be open. We say that it should have been kept open by the Board, but that it is now possible to open it and that to open it and keep it open would cost less than to close and keep closed that small section.
We also say that these things would have been done, had the litigation taken place, or might have been done. We say that now at least there is an opportunity of it actually happening. If this House, after what has happened in the other place, should suddenly snatch away this opportunity for which these people have been working for years, and on which ratepayers have spent a great deal of money, there will be a great deal of disillusionment about our doings tonight.

Mr. Carlisle: The excellence of previous speeches made from both sides enables me to be very brief. It has been said that there were 18 local authorities among the plaintiffs in this action. Two of those authorities are within my constituency. Neither were riparian owners in respect of these canals, but they are concerned because they represent areas


affected by the canals in Cheshire, and they know full well the enjoyment and concerned because they represent areas get out of the canals.
If I may use a phrase used by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), they have started this action in the belief, and on the advice, that they have a reasonable case against British Waterways, and they have incurred costs to that end. The point I want to make is that it is all very well to say that this is pending litigation, and that one can always legislate to change pending litigation. This action is based on years of past neglect, or alleged past neglect, and it is based on the complaint that for many years British Waterways has failed in what has been its statutory duty to maintain these canals.
If this was any other form of action, if it was a claim for damages, the appearance of this Measure could not prevent the claim for damages which have accrued to that date. In this form of action one is asking for relief by the putting of these canals into the state that they would have been had British Waterways carried out its statutory duties.
There are those who are deeply concerned about seeing that these canals should continue to be an amenity to the area, and they should have the right to pursue that action to show that the present neglect, and the fact that the canals are not in the Second Schedule or Part 2 of the Twelfth Schedule, is due to neglect caused by breach of statutory duty by British Waterways over the last seven years.
It would be extremely unfortunate if, due to this Measure, this action cannot be continued, and as a result canals which clearly would have been kept as cruising canals, are to be lost for ever. The Member for Manchester, Blackley and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) among others, referred to the lack of amenity in the North-West of England. One knows full well that these canals are needed, that they are used, as the canals in that area are used, to provide pleasure amenities for the people there.
In the North-West this year and last year it has been "Operation Spring Clean". At a time when great efforts are being made by local authorities to

clean up buildings and land in their areas, in an effort to make the whole area more attractive, it is unfortunate that the same spring cleaning cannot take place in these canals, so as to bring the whole of the canal ring back into use for the benefit of the people.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I intervene in this debate to say a few words upon the legal points arising. The Lords Amendments refers in express terms to:
… proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings.
It has been suggested in certain quarters—I confess that it has not been emphasised in this debate—that there is a constitutional innovation in passing legislation which will deprive the relators in this action of my right hon. and learned Friend of the basis of their claim and of the opportunity of proving their case. It has been hinted that there is some element of oppressiveness.
When the Bill was introduced, it provided that Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, which was a provision requiring the Waterways Board to maintain certain inland waterways, shall cease to apply and that local enactments shall also cease to have effect. This provision, if it became law, would be fatal to the action which the relators contemplated. The application to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to grant his fiat was made on 14th December, 1967, after the contents of the Transport Bill were known and when the relators knew what would be the effect on any action of theirs if the Bill went through Parliament unamended. That date is of great importance. It is a matter of moment that the proceedings in the action began after the contents of the Bill were known.
When this occurred, let it be observed what my right hon. and learned Friend did, because I am anxious that this should be perfectly clear and well understood. He drew the attention of the relators to to the fact that the provisions of the Transport Bill, which had meanwhile been published, might well have the effect of rendering their action ineffectual and that if they proceeded with it they would be throwing good money after bad. He


drew attention to that in what was unquestionably an entirely correct and proper manner. In the light of that, they gave further consideration to the case, but, nonetheless, decided to carry on with the action. I do not know what was in their minds. It may well be that their expectation, and even hope, was that there would be an amendment of the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Therefore, they re-submitted their application for my right hon. and learned Friend to commence proceedings with them as relators in an action.
At that point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to have regard to the state of the law at the time that the application for the relation was made. The state of the law was pretty clear. There was the current responsibility on the part of the Waterways Board to maintain the canal. It was in that fashion that these proceedings started, and the fiat of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was granted on 24th January this year.
10.30 p.m.
It is clear beyond question that, in deciding whether or not to grant the fiat, my right hon. and learned Friend must have regard to what the state of the law is at the time of the application. It will often occur that legislation is passed by Parliament which has an effect upon the rights and liabilities of parties to litigation which is current during the course of a Bill. There is no rule of parliamentary procedure which precludes Parliament from legislating on matters which happen to be before the court, and it would be a very extraordinary situation if there were.

Sir S. Summers: is the hon. and learned Gentleman denying any distinction between matters which may be before the court on the one hand and matters affecting a Government body which may be before the court on the other?

The Solicitor-General: In principle there is not a distinction to be drawn between these two, so I would think. It was suggested in the course of the debate that it would be wrong to pay too much attention to the circumstance that only a few days had passed between the publication of the Transport Bill and the application for the grant of the fiat. I

do not want to place undue emphasis upon the short passage of time that applied in that instance.
Correspondence had been in progress over a considerable period between the parties who became relators in the action and the Department. So much time had been allowed to elapse that the belief was held that there was not an intention to proceed with the action when the date of the publication of the Bill was reached. Be that as it may, I do not think that the circumstance that this had been a long-outstanding issue between the relators and the Department makes any difference whatsoever on the matter of principle. It was still a perfectly clear case of Parliament taking to itself the right, which must always be Parliament's, to legislate in a matter that is subject to current litigation. If my right hon. and learned Friend took the special precaution of pointing out to the relators that if they went on with this action they might well be throwing good money after bad and behaving contrary to their interests, he acted, as I think the House will agree, absolutely correctly and perfectly fairly. It was only when that treatment of the matter was rejected that he granted his fiat, as he was bound to do having regard to the state of the law at the time the application was made.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that on a true view of this matter regard should be had to the point that the basis of this action had been established in many years past in a history of breach of statutory duty by the Waterways Board. I take note of that point. I give it such fair consideration as I can, and I am bound to say that I do not think that that matter can be regarded as altering the principle. I trust that that is a fair comment.
If he takes the view that the more substantial the merits of the action the less desirable it is to put an end to relator proceedings, I hope that he will give full weight to certain counter considerations, including the line of defence which would be available if the action were to proceed based upon the effect of Section 64 of the 1962 Transport Act, which put into abeyance rights which had previously existed for parties who


sought to get the statutory authorities to perform their duties. This has a strong bearing on the merits of the action. It is not by itself conclusive but should be borne in mind in the general context of the need for fairness and reasonable treatment of litigants. I trust that the House will, therefore, recognise that there is, on a reasonable view no injustice done if Parliament legislates in a fashion fatal to the relator action referred to in the Amendment.
As to the two canals having a special position, surely that fact has been recognised by the Minister of State, because the Ministry proposes that the Waterways Board will require Ministerial consent before any action is taken to change the character and position of these two canals. I hope that the House will think, therefore, that it is appropriate to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said that he intended leaving the dusty atmosphere of legal chambers, but we very quickly returned to them and have spent some time there. All those who have heard this debate will be very disappointed that the final Government speech was an attempt to deal in some depth with the legal point without recognising the very real case made by hon. Members on both sides and of all parties. There is no doubt that, if there were a free vote on the Amendment, the Government would be devastatingly defeated.
All speakers in the debate—the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Paul B. Rose) and High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), who have a particular constituency interest, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who has detailed knowledge of inland waterways, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), whose detailed knowledge is well-known, the hon. Member for Cheadle—have combined to condemn the Government's attitude to this problem.
I find it beyond comprehension that a Government who continue to say that they want to improve the amenities of the waterways should pursue a policy which will ruin the use of 110 miles of waterways in an area close to a major

conurbation. Not only are they willing to do that, but they are introducing legislation to prevent a legal action from taking place which was certainly commenced before the Bill was published.
I am surprised that the Solicitor-General takes that attitude because the Lord Chancellor made it clear that he was aware that the preparations for this action were taking place and that local authorities had passed resolutions approving the action. When the Bill was published, that fact was well know publicly. I am surprised that the Government should seek to prevent that legal action from taking place. As a result they will prevent many hundreds of thousands of people in a major conurbation from enjoying the use of that waterway.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that the hon. Member wishes to be fair and accurate. It is simply not the case that this action was commenced before the publication of the Bill, and it is very important to have that clear. By inadvertence the hon. Member stated the contrary. The distinction between the commencement of an action and the preparation of an action is one which the House must be asked to recognise.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Walker: The reaction of both sides of the House treats the Solicitor-General's words with the contempt which they deserve. When challenged on the point that local authorities had passed resolutions to commence this action, the Lord Chancellor said,
I quite accept that; there was a lot going on behind the scenes between the parties and their solicitors, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086.]
I repeat the phrase "and so on".
It was well known to the Government and to the public that this action was taking place. The Government have acted in a very shoddy manner and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join in voting against them.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Could you inform the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the Amendment has been carried or whether a Division is taking place? There seems to be some confusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ordered the Lobbies to be cleared in order that a Division should take place.

Mr. Peter Walker: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Nobody said "Aye". How can there be a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened very carefully. There were some shouts of "Aye".

Mr. John Ellis: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I shouted "Aye".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has confirmed what I said. Not very many shouted "Aye", but there were some who did, and that is why I ordered the Lobbies to be cleared.

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 212.

Division No. 305.]
AYES
[10.42 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Lawson, George


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John


Barnett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall


Baxter, William
Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael


Bence, Cyril
Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin


Boston, Terence
Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Boyden, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bradley, Tom
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hamling, William
Maxwell, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, J. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Chapman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coe, Denis
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Hobden, Dennis
Moyle, Roland


Concannon, J. D.
Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Horner, John
Neal, Harold


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Norwood, Christopher


Crawshaw, Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Davits, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dempsey, James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda West)
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)




Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Slater, Joseph
Whitlock, William


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rankin, John
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rees, Merlyn
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thornton, Ernest
Wilson. Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank
Winnick, David


Roebuck, Roy
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Yates, Victor


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wallace George



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. McBride and


Short Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Fitch


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Astor, John
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maddan, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus


Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
More, Jasper


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Carlisle Mark
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Cooper-Key Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M,


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Dance, James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Doughty, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lancaster Col., C. G.
Speed, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farr, John
Loveys, W. H.
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)







Teeling, Sir William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond


Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


van Straubenzee W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Vounger, Hn. George


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Vickers, Dame Joan
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Waddington, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Walker, Peter (Worcetser)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Anthony Grant

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Clause 120

BOARD'S OBLIGATIONS AT LEVEL CROSS INGS WITH ROADS OTHER THAN PUBLIC CARRIAGE ROADS

Lords Amendment No. 156: In page 157, line 31, at end insert:
including the owner and occupier of the land for which the crossing is maintained.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If this Amendment were accepted the Minister would be empowered to require the Railways Board to increase protection at crossings which are entirely private. The Government intend to use the powers under this Clause to improve protection at a number of crossings where the public use of the road justifies this; but they would not wish to make the Railways Board solely responsible for the cost of improvements to entirely private crossings. The Board has a general obligation for the safety of trains and it is in the interests of both the Board and the landowner to agree between themselves on any improvements which may be desirable at particular private crossings.
The Government are aware that this has involved practical difficulties in a number of cases, owing to the high cost of additional safety measures, but they do not consider that placing sole responsibility on the Board is an equitable answer. Discussions designed to find a solution to the practical difficulties will be taking place shortly as was mentioned by Lord Winterbottom in another place on Report, between the Ministry, the National Farmers' Union and the Railways Board. It was suggested by Lord Nugent of Guildford on Report that the Ministry should make a contribution to the cost of additional safety measures at private crossings in order to keep down the costs falling on the Board and on farmers. The analogy was suggested of the construction of motorways where the Ministry meets the cost of accommodation bridges and tunnels serving farmers'

interests, but the analogy is not complete. The Ministry, as highway authority, has a direct responsibility for trunk roads. On the other hand, although he is concerned for rail safety, the Minister has no direct responsibility for financing railway safety measures.
11.0 p.m.
Where, as a result of this Clause costs would be incurred in improving a level crossing, and providing occupation roads now used by the public, they have been taken into account in accordance with the recommendations of the joint steering group in the qualifications made to the proposals for the recapitalisation of the railways.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not think that the Minister's explanation is satisfactory. Under this Clause the Minister has power to require the Railways Board to provide such protection at level crossings over roads other than public carriage roads as he considers necessary for the protection or convenience of the public. This Amendment was discussed at length in the other place and it is not a small matter. As was pointed out by Lord Windlesham, there are 10,000 private farm crossings concerned in this, and the National Farmers' Union in 1963 pointed out that 600 were in need of further protection. The Minister of Agriculture is able to make a grant towards helping them.
In another place, in resisting this Amendment, Lord Winterbottom used the argument which the hon. Gentleman has just used, that although the obligation was on the railway companies to look after the safety of their passengers, they had no responsibility for adjoining owners. This is an ancient principle, an old-fashioned idea which goes back to the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, Section 68, which very much limited the accommodation works which the railway had to provide for adjoining owners.
The analogy is a motorway. Without question, when a motorway is built, an underpass is provided for the benefit of adjoining farmers and not at a cost to them. It is built at the cost of the constructors of the motorway. There is no reason why a farmer should be expected to pay for the construction of a level crossing in modern times. It was


all very well in the days of steam trains which were pretty slow, but with modern trains, an accommodation crossing is as dangerous as a public crossing and there have been serious accidents on the private crossings as on the public ones in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and I recently saw some of the modernisation schemes which British Railways envisage. One is a high speed train which is intended to do 150 m.p.h. on existing track. At those sort of speeds, a farm gate crossing is a positive menace and something better will have to be provided. This Clause, as amended by another place, would be desirable because it gives the Minister a good deal of discretion to act as he considers necessary or desirable for the protection or convenience of the public. The Amendment leaves the onus on the Minister to consider what is necessary or desirable, and if he does not consider it so, it is not necessary. If it is necessary, I do not

see why a farmer should not have payment made to provide protection.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: This is a complex and difficult problem, to which there is no easy answer. In the course of the discussion in the House of Lords it was pointed out that negotiations were taking place, but, unfortunately, we have had no final word about these. If we leave things as they are, some farmers may be faced with the expenditure of about £1,000 or more to obtain access to their own land. We on this side cannot be insensitive to these major and human problems facing the important agricultural industry. In these circumstances, we have no option but to resist the Government in their move to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 208.

Division No. 306.]
AYES
11.5 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Albu, Austen
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamling, William


Alldritt, Walter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Harper, Joseph


Allen, Scholefield
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Archer, Peter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Haseldine, Norman


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hattersley, Roy


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hazell, Bert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnes, Michael
Dempsey, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Barnett, Joel
Dewar, Donald
Hilton, W. S.


Baxter, William
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Beaney, Alan
Dickens, James
Hooley, Frank


Bence, Cyril
Dobson, Ray
Horner, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)



Blackburn, F.
Eadie, Alex
Howie, W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ellis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boston, Terence
Ensor, David
Hunter, Adam


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hynd, John


Boyden, James
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Finch, Harold
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brooks, Edwin
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gardner, Tony
Kenyon, Clifford


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lawson, George


Chapman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted


Coe, Denis
Gregory, Arnold
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Coleman, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)




Lipton, Marcus
Norwood, Christopher
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lomas, Kenneth
Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ogden, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Slater, Joseph


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Orbach, Maurice
Small, William


McBride, Neil
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


McCann, John
Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


MacDermot, Niall
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Macdonald, A. H.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McGuire, Michael
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, Stephen


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George



Park, Trevon
Thornton, Ernest


Mackie, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tomney, Frank


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Urwin, T. W


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins David (Consett)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Weitzman, David


Manuel, Archie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mapp, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marks, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rees, Merlyn
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Maxwell, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mendelson, J, J.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roebuck, Roy
Winnick, David


Molloy, William
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rose, Paul
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Yates, Victor


Moyle, Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)



Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Newens, Stan
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Astor, John
Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dalkeith Earl of
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hay, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heseltine, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bessell, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward



Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hooson, Emlyn


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Braine, Bernard
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brewis, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gibson-Watt, David
Jopling, Michael


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Waller
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kershaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Grant, Anthony
Lambton, Viscount


Campbell Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clark, Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Loveys, W. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lubbock, Eric


Cordle, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
MacArthur, Ian







Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pounder, Rafton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McMaster, Stanley
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maddan, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Marten, Neil
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mawby, Ray
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Miscampbell, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wall, Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Royle, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Webster, David


More, Jasper
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton, Oscar
Silvester, Frederick
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Neal, Harold
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Neave, Airey
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Worsley, Marcus


Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wright, Esmond


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wylie, N. R.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Peyton, John

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 123

AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS AS TO PARKING PLACES

Lords Amendment No. 160: in page 165, line 35, leave out "paragraphs" and insert:

"paragraph—
(d) provided that adequate provision for off-street parking facilities in each local authority area has been made then such surplus may be applied to—

Read a Second time.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): With this Amendment go Lords Amendment No. 161, in page 165, line 40, leave out "(e)" and insert "(ii)", Lords Amendment No. 162, in page 166, line 6, leave out "(e)" and insert "(d)(ii)" and Lords Amendment No. 248, in Schedule 14, page 252, line 4, leave out "or (e)" and insert "(i) or (ii)".

Mr. Brown: The Government are anxious to give local authorities greater flexibility in the use of parking meter revenue. At present, they can use revenue only for the provision or maintenance of off-street parking. If this is the only available use for the revenue, we may

well reach a stage when the provision of future off-street parking could result in severe congestion in roads in the area. As the law stands, this is a distinct possibility.

The Government feel that it may well be wiser to spend the money on improved roads, traffic management schemes and better public transport. Arguments have almost been conceded in the other place on the Lords Amendment, but although we cannot accept the Lords Amendment and have, therefore, substituted our Amendment—in Clause 123, page 165, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs: —(d)' and insert 'paragraph:—
(d) if it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways is for the time being unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes, namely—
(i)'
—I think that we have made considerable concessions to the Opposition in that Amendment and, indeed, in accepting three Opposition Amendments.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I do not understand why the Parliamentary Secretary could not find it possible, when we first discussed the matter on Report some months ago, to accept the Amendment which has now been put down by the Government in slightly different form. The situation as we outlined it from this side of the House is precisely the situation which is embodied in the Amendment


which the Government have put down to their Lordships' Amendment.
We argued not that there should be a permanent and all-time embargo on the use of parking meter revenue for any purpose, but that there should be an embargo until adequate provision had been made. We were told by the Government that that was an unacceptable concept. When this problem arose in another place, exactly the same arguments were put forward by the Government. Now, the Government have slightly reworded what we have said all along and have put it down as their own Amendment.
It would be discourteous of me, in the last speech that I shall make from the Dispatch Box on the Transport Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could not resist the temptation to unite the House on at least one thing in this last speech of mine after 12 months of speech-making on the subject. We accept the Government's Amendment because we believe, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that it is a direct concession to what we have always argued.
I want to say two things about why it is possible to accept the Government's Amendment and why the words which they have introduced are acceptable. This is an Amendment which has aroused great interest outside the House, and it is important that people should understand our position on the matter. The Government are saying that local authorities shall be permitted to use surplus parking meter revenue provided that a local authority is convinced that the additional facilities in off-street parking are either unnecessary or undesirable.
If they have to prove—and they will have to if the law carries these words—that the facilities are unnecessary, I believe we are entitled to assume that they will prove either that there is too much off-street parking or that there is no demand for it. They would be under statutory obligation to prove that one of these conditions existed. In other cases we have always argued that that would indicate adequate Provision of off-street parking, and we would accept that.
On the other hand, it would be possible for local authorities to argue that additional off-street parking would be

undesirable. There was a time when it was the given view in transport matters that there could not come a situation where off-street parking could in itself be undesirable, but all of us are aware that thinking is changing dramatically, because off-street parking can create its own demands, and those demands give rise to considerable congestion in the peak rush hours when all the traffic comes out of the off-street parking and adds to the congestion already in the city streets. So I fully accept that it could well be a justification for not providing additional off-street parking that it was believed it would only aggravate the very problems that the off-street parking is designed to cure.
I think that in those circumstances it is reasonable that local authorities in administering the traffic in their areas, and the Government should have either of these two let-outs for the purpose of the use of the money gathered from parking meters.
We on this side are very grateful that at this late stage we should have added one more concession to that very long list of concessions that the Opposition have extracted from the Government in this very long Bill.

Mr. Bessell: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Bessell: I have not the slightest intention of sitting down because I am told by hon. Gentlemen opposite to sit down. This has been a long debate, and I certainly do not wish to prolong it beyond saying—[Interruption.] If I have fewer interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite in sedentary positions I shall get on much faster. What I rose to do, which may give them some comfort, was to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that, like the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), that I agree that the Amendment introduced by the Government goes a very long way to meet the case that we argued at considerable length, and with some heat at times, in Standing Committee.
This is an important matter. The problem of off-street parking is an acute one. As the hon. Member for Tavistock said, one could create a situation in which greater congestion would result from the provision of off-street parking than by


leaving things as they are. There is a very good example of this in New York where too much off-street parking in midtown Manhattan has resulted in the type of congestion to which he, referred.
The hon. Member for Tavistock said that it was his last speech on the Transport Bill. It may well be that these are the last speeches that he and I will make on the Bill, but I suspect that if it receives the Royal Assent he and I will be tussling with it across the Chamber at Question Time at least until the end of this Parliament.
It would be wrong not to thank the Minister for the concession that he has made in this matter, which is obviously a great help.

Sir Clive Bossom: I have misgivings about the Government Amendment because it is still a sell out of the former pledge given to the motoring public, who were told that surplus revenue would be used for off-street parking.
The words "unnecessary or undesirable", in the Amendment, could not be more off the point because off-street parking in all our cities is hopelessly inadequate. A survey done by the British Road Federation shows that no authority has provided completely adequate off-street parking for present or future requirements. Therefore, the Amendment gives local authorities a perfect let-out to do nothing. It is a negative attitude. Local authorities should now be seriously studying how to control parking on highways and studying other parking methods, such as the "parking disc scheme".
The motorist is being short changed. It can be argued that the meter revenue could also be spent on public transport and road improvements, since both are needed and both are highly desirable, but the money should come from the central fund and not from local authority funds. The Government should be showing enthusiasm and giving a lead by making provision for building more multi-storey and underground car parks and for building over railway stations and railway sidings. Instead, they have this negative approach.
It has been hard to extract from the Government what is the exact amount of meter revenue, but the R.A.C. managed to get from the local authorities how much they have collected. Since the

scheme was introduced in 1958, they have taken £8½ million and it has cost £6 million to administer, which in my opinion is far too high. The administrative cost could be greatly reduced and then we would have £4 million to £5 million for use in constructing more garages and off-street parking.
I fear that, once we allow the local authorities to use meter income on public transport and highway improvements, they will also try to use the money for other projects such as recreational facilities and amenities. This is really a confidence trick on the motoring public.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 165, line 35, leave out 'paragraphs:—(d)' and insert:

'paragraph:—
(d) if it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further parking accommodation for vehicles otherwise than on highways is for the time being unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes, namely—
(i)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Clause 129

DUTY TO ACT IN CERTAIN CASES AS BODY ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ENTER PRISE

Lords Amendment No. 176: In page 177, line 6, at end insert new Clause "F".
F. —(1) This section applies to the following authorities, namely, the Boards, the new authorities, and the Executive for any designated area within the meaning of section 9(1) of this Act.
(2) Every authority to whom this section applies who engage either directly or through a subsidiary, in any activities authorised by any of the provisions specified in subsection (3) of this section shall in carrying on those activities act as if they were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise or, as the case may be, shall exercise their control over that subsidiary so as to ensure that the subsidiary in carrying on those activities acts as a company so engaged.
(3) The provisions referred to in subsection (2) of this section are—
(a) the following provisions of the Act of 1962, namely, section 6 (which relates to the provision of hotels) and subsection (2)


to (4) of section 11 (which relate to certain development or acquisition of land);
(b) the following provisions of this Act, namely, sections 2(1)(g)(ii) and (m), 10(1)(viii), (xx)(b) and (xxii), 25(e) and (f), 26(1)(e)(ii), (f) and (k), 49(1) to (4), 50(1) (so far as it relates to the provision of facilities at additional premises), and 50(3), (4) and (5)."

Read a Second time.

Amendments made to the Lords Amendment:

Leave out line 16.
Line 20, after '(viii)', insert '(xi)'.
Line 21, after '(k)', insert '48(2)'.
Line 23, leave out '(3), (4) and' and insert '(2) to'.

10
"H.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 with respect to certain Crown roads, the Minister may, with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority or authorities concerned, by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, subject to subsection (3) of this section and to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications appearing to him to be necessary or expedient as may be specified in the order, all or any of the road traffic enactments shall apply to all Crown roads, or to any specified Crown road or Crown roads, or to Crown roads of a specified class, as they apply in relation to other roads to which the public has access.


15
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, but subject to subsection (3) of this section, any order under the said subsection (1) with respect to any of the road traffic enactments may in particular include provision—


20
(a) for enabling functions with respect to a road exercisable under the enactment in question by the local authority or the highway authority to be exercised with respect to a Crown road by the appropriate Crown authority or by a particular local authority or highway authority;


25
(b) for enabling power to make an order, regulation or scheme under the enactment in question with respect to a Crown road which would otherwise be exercisable by a local authority or highway authority to be exercised instead by the Minister, and for requiring the consent of the Minister to the variation or revocation by any other authority of such an order, regulation or scheme made by him;


30


35
(c) for a certificate of the appropriate Crown authority or of the Minister that the authority or Minister has, or has not, consented to the doing of anything for which under the order or under this section the consent of the authority or, as the case may be, the Minister is required to be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the facts stated;


40
(d) for exempting from any provision of the enactment in question persons and vehicles on a Crown road in the service of the Crown or of an agent of the Crown.


45
(3) No order, regulation or scheme in relation to a Crown road shall be made, varied or revoked under any of the road traffic enactments by virtue of an order under subsection (1) of this section except by or with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority.



(4) With a view to the avoidance of doubt, the road traffic enactments specified in an order under subsection (1) of this

Consequential Amendment made to the Bill:

In page 262, line 7, after 'Sections', insert:
'(Duty to act in certain cases as body engaged in commercial enterprise)'.

—[Mr. Marsh.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "H"

APPLICATION OF ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS TO CROWN ROADS

Lords Amendment No. 190: In page 192, line 37, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "H":

50
section may include any provision of those enactments notwithstanding that it would have applied in relation to Crown roads apart from the making of the order; and the inclusion in the order of a provision which would so have applied shall not prejudice anything done under that provision in relation to a Crown road before the coming into force of the order.



(5) In this section—


55
(a) the expression 'appropriate Crown authority', in relation to a Crown road, means—


60
(i) in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or other government department having the management of that land;



(ii) in the case of a road on land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy;


65
(iii) in the case of a road on land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, such person as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints;


70
(iv) in the case of a road on land belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, that department;


75
and if any question arises under this paragraph as to what authority is the appropriate Crown authority in relation to any Crown road, that question shall be referred to the Treasury, whose decision shall be final;



(b) the expression 'Crown road' means a road, other than a highway, to which the public has access by permission granted by the appropriate Crown authority, or otherwise granted by or on behalf of the Crown;


80
(c) the expression 'road traffic enactments' means the enactments (whether passed before or after this Act) relating to road traffic, including the lighting and parking of vehicles, and any order or other instrument having effect by virtue of any such enactment;


85
and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.


90
(6) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any enactment in addition to this section and section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 which relates to Crown roads."

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the Lords Amendment: In line 81, after 'after', insert 'or contained in'. —[Mr. Marsh.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 191 agreed to: In page 192, line 37, after the Amendment last inserted, insert Clause "I" (Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee).

Consequential Amendment made to the Bill: In page 262, line 7, after '141', insert '(Railways and Coastal Shipping Committee)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed and agreed to.

Schedule 9

TRANSPORT MANAGERS' LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 221: In page 226, line 8, at end insert:
( ) A licensing authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph in respect of any licence unless he is satisfied that, owing to the frequency with which the holder of the licence has been guilty of offences, acts or omissions which are grounds for the giving of such a direction or to the facts of the particular case being for any other reason sufficiently serious, such a direction should be given.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. G. Campbell: I am sorry to interrupt this agreeable acquiescence to the improvements which another place


has made, but this is a particularly important Amendment with which trade and industry outside this House is much concerned. It was an Amendment which we had been pressing in this House when the Bill was passing through its earlier stages, but, unfortunately, the Guillotine meant that we were never able to give it proper justice, and we are glad to see the Government, in another place, did make this Amendment.
In the White Paper, The Transport of Freight, it was stated that the transport manager's licence would only be at risk in serious cases of mismanagement. This was not carried through into the Bill. We pressed this at the earlier stages, but the Government ignored it. We welcome the fact that again they have seen the light in the Lords and proposed this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Schedule 17

APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment No. 251: In page 262, line 2, leave out "49(5)".

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker: As this is the last Amendment with which we agree I would like to say how typical it is that their Lordships should have to point out another example of thoroughly bad drafting. By this Amendment, we are preventing the Secretary of State for Scotland from acquiring land in Ulster. I am sure that this is an important Amendment, and certainly we are glad that the Government have accepted it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 18

REPEALS

Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 263, leave out lines 22 to 24. —[Mr. Marsh.]

Words so restored to the Bill amended in page 263, line 22, by leaving out 'the proviso to'. —[Mr. Marsh.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Bob Brown, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Swingler, Mr. Peter Walker, and Mr. Webster; Three to be the quorum. —[Mr. Marsh.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; To be communicated to the Lords.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (MR. PETER DERA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

11.42 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Not for the first time in this House or in the other place this debate calls attention to the nationality rules for entry into the Armed Forces, in this case for entry to the Royal Air Force.
The rules apply to all those who seek to join the Armed Forces, except those who seek to enlist as other ranks in the Army. An applicant must satisfy the Service that he or she has always been a British citizen, and that both parents have been British, Commonwealth or Irish Republican citizens all their lives. In exceptional circumstances the Minister concerned may exercise his discretion, notwithstanding the fact that an applicant does not meet those conditions. The rules have applied also for many years to civil servants who are employed in certain Government Departments.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for supplying me with copies of all the Parliamentary references in the last few years to the nationality rules. It is clear from those references that the reasons for the existence of the rules are: first, the need to safeguard national security; second, the need to offer all Servicemen unrestricted career opportunities; and, third, the need to protect


relatives from pressures that might be exercised on them, especially if they live behind the Iron Curtain. That is briefly the background; I think I have it right, but my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.
I now come to the particular case with which I am concerned. Peter Dera is an 18-year-old toolmaker apprentice in Glenrothes, in Fife. A great part of his spare time is spent in the local Air Training Corps, in which he holds the rank of sergeant. He is mad keen to join the Royal Air Force. In fact, he applied before he was 17, and was politely thanked for his enthusiasm and asked to apply when he was of age. He eventually had an interview in Edinburgh on 30th November, 1967. Not until 23rd August, 1968, did he receive notification of rejection. That was nine months for the Department to say, "No."
This was an inexcusable delay in the Department and my anger was not allayed when my hon. Friend wrote to say that, unfortunately, the papers had been mislaid. I had written to the Minister of Defence on 261h August and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force replied on 6th September. He also said something of which I was not aware, that Mr. Dera
…was warned in November, 1967, that his prospects of entry were poor.
I was handed all the correspondence by Mr. Dera, senior, and there is no reference in any of it to the fact that his prospects of entry were poor, unless it is that the implied warning was the nationality rules, a copy of which he was given when he applied. It certainly was not spelled out in any letter which the man received.
In his letter of 6th September, my hon. Friend explained the history and purposes of the nationality rules and pointed out that difficulties can arise when the recruit has a foreign born naturalised parent, for relatives, particularly behind the Iron Curtain, might be subject to pressure. Peter Dera's father was Polish born, although he has been in the United Kingdom for nearly 25 years, 15 of them as a naturalised

Briton. I went to see them and found them good, solid, respectable British citizens. It is true that the parents of Mr. Dera senior are still in Poland, but He has not been in touch with them for many years, and they are, anyway, now in their seventies. He also has a brother and sister in Poland, but in that case, also, there has been no correspondence for several years. It is Mr. Dera senior's opinion that it is extremely unlikely that pressures would be brought to bear on these relatives if his son joined the Air Force.
That letter of 6th September made me extremely angry and I wrote to my hon. Friend again while my blood was boiling. I can see the need to safeguard national security, but it gets to the point of absurdity when anyone can become Prime Minister even if his father were a Russian and his mother a Hottentot—he can become a Minister, but not "A/c Plonk". In any event, the recent threats to national security have come in the main from those of British birth with British parents and often with a public school education. Can my hon. Friend cite a single case in the years since the war in which pressure has been exerted on relatives in Poland or elsewhere and has been responsible for either a defection or a military betrayal?
When I was investigating this case, another case was brought to my attention which underlines the absurdity of the rules. I have been requested not to mention names lest the boy be victimised, but he, too, was the son of a Polish father. He tried to join the R.A.F., but came up against the same barrier of the nationality rule. My information is that he got over that barrier by the simple device of changing his name, by deed poll, for a few shillings, to his mother's maiden name. He went back to the same recruiting office and was accepted into the Force without any trouble. No nationality questions have been raised with the boy since that date.
Another case which was quoted in a daily newspaper of 29th September was of a young man who held a private flying licence, having won an R.A.F. flying scholarship. Although short-listed for the R.A.F. College at Cranwell, he has been rejected because his father was born Polish.
How much longer is this kind of thing to go on? We have heard many tributes to the part which the Poles played in our war effort in the war years. I wonder whether these boys could bring an action within the terms of the Race Relations Act. The first part of that Measure makes it clear that if there is discrimination on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origin in seeking employment, an action may lie. It is not as if recruits were queueing up to join the Forces. On the contrary, there is a shortfall which must be worrying defence Ministers.
This, I think, is the first occasion—probably a unique occasion in the House—for me on which I have been campaigning actively to get someone into the forces. Very often it is the other way round. I do so because I feel very strongly that Peter Dera has been unfairly dealt with and that the Minister has not used his discretionary powers in the liberal way which I had expected.
I have been in communication with the boy's parents in the last few days. Depending on the Minister's reply tonight they have asked me to refer the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and that I will do in due course.

11.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) clearly outlined, we are debating the case of Peter Dera the British-born son of a Polish father. It has not been found possible to allow Peter to join the Royal Air Force.
I cannot deal with individual cases without reference to the general policy framework, but behind the important issues of principle is a very personal story. I am always very conscious of that. I shall, therefore, try to deal with the whole problem as fully as I can, although hon. Members will understand, I hope, that there are some areas in which security considerations exist and in which I cannot be as explicit as I might otherwise wish to be.
The entry rules for the Armed Services, like those of the Civil Service, have for many years laid down certain conditions regarding an applicant's nationality and that of his parents. Some

such rules are clearly necessary in the interests of security. The actual extent of the rules and the manner in which they are published has varied from time to time in the light of the experience gained in their application and the changing context in which they operate. The rules apply to every foreign nationality, and not simply, as happens to be the case with Peter Dera, to applicants with a parent of Polish origin, although there are some special difficulties when one of the parents happens to have come from behind the Iron Curtain.
The rules currently governing all forms of entry to the Royal Air Force—the Service for which I am responsible—were adopted in 1965 and are modelled on those made by the Civil Service Commissioners under the Civil Service Order in Council as they apply to civilian employees of, for example, the Ministry of Defence.
The same rules apply to the Royal Navy and the Army, though it is possible to join the Army in the non-commissioned ranks without being subject to the rules. This is because the Army can offer a full career in those ranks without access to classified information.
In brief, a candidate for entry into the R.A.F. must satisfy the Service authorities that both he and his parents were born in a Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic and have been British subjects, or citizens of the Irish Republic, since birth. In adopting these rules, we were careful to consider not only the requirements of the Services, but also the best interests of the individual who is looking for a career in the Services.
It is clear that if a man is to have a full career in the R.A.F. he will almost certainly at some time or other need to have access to highly classified information. Because of this, he will need to be subject to security inquiries. When recruits go to recruiting centres they are made aware of the implications of positive vetting. As we know, people of foreign birth or parentage who still have relatives living behind the Iron Curtain are at risk of having pressures brought to bear on them through these relations. I am not saying that this will happen, but we simply cannot, in the light of all our knowledge, ignore the possibility that it might.
My hon. Friend made play with what he knew of those who had been found guilty of espionage and with the schools which they had attended. I listened to what he said, but I cannot make available any information which we have concerning the matter under discussion. I can only add that we are speaking of something that can happen. For this reason, people subject to the pressure I have described cannot normally be given access to highly classified information. As a result, there are only limited areas in the R.A.F. where they can be employed, and it is not possible to offer them the prospect of a full and satisfactory career. This is not just a question of someone dealing with classified information. People serving on a R.A.F. station doing what one might call the most menial of jobs, will be mixing with others who have access to classified information.
Thus, the rules are clear and the reasons for adopting them reflect a proper concern for the future career prospects of the candidate and, at the same time, a proper concern for the security of the State. The rules are published in our literature and when a young man goes to a recruiting centre he is provided with the information relating to the nationality rules. In addition, the rules are explained to potential entrants at our recruiting offices, where possible nationality cases are identified. Every candidate must make a statement about his nationality and that of his parents.
This brings me to the remarks of my hon. Friend about a boy who changed his name. He would have had to give information about his parents on the form which he would have been required to complete. In fact, his change of name would not have made the slightest difference. It is not enough to change one's name to get into the Services. My hon. Friend properly did not reveal the identity of the boy, but I suspect, hem what I know about the matter, that this young man was made aware of the nationality rules, went away and later, after deciding to change his name, filled in the form. I suspect that a waiver to the nationality rules would have been exercised in any case, so that in this case the young man wasted a few shillings on changing his name.
If, when potential entrants go to recruiting centres, anything relevant to the nationality rules is shown up, they are asked to make a more detailed statement. Birth certificates, passports and naturalisation papers, if they have them, are examined at that stage and appropriate inquiries are then made. These steps are necessary because, as I have explained, there is provision for the rules to be waived, on the authority of the Secretary of State, where exceptional circumstances exist.
My hon. Friend mentioned another case. I should make it clear that one can investigate a case of whether a young man or woman is to be subject to the nationality rules only when that person has actually applied to join the R.A.F. or other Service. One cannot make a guess some years before on what might happen; it is only when the actual application is made that one can look into the circumstances.
It is possible to cater for the kind of situation which arises when the failure to satisfy the rules is a purely technical one, for example, where a child of British parents is born abroad, perhaps to a Service family during a spell of overseas duty. This is relatively clear cut, but under the nationality rules. In addition, the dispensing power enables us—in the case of the Royal Air Force, enables me—to look at less clear-cut cases, particularly of the kind where the possibility exists of pressures of the kind I have referred to earlier. I repeat that these cases are looked at individually and in detail, and wherever a careful, but none the less sympathetic examination of all the factors leads to the conclusion that exceptional circumstances do exist, the waiver is exercised.
There is nothing rigid in our attitude to the operation of these rules. Still less do we wish to discriminate blindly against children whose parents are of Polish origin, recognising, as we must, that many of these parents have in their time fought bravely in or alongside our own forces. I served on R.A.F. stations with Polish squadrons during the war. I personally served in Italy, and know the bravery of Polish airmen at Casino. I recently met members of the Polish Air Force Association—brave men who fought for this country, and for their own country as well, in the last war.
In fact, nearly half of the cases which the Royal Air Force has had during the last year where the nationality rules had to be invoked because one parent was born in Poland, as in Peter Dera's family, it has been found possible to waive the rules. When we have waived the rules and accepted an application, it means that we are satisfied that we can provide the applicant with a full and useful career in the Service, limited solely by his ability.
Even when we have to decide, often with some reluctance, that there are no exceptional circumstances, or that a potential risk to security exists which is not acceptable, I must emphasise that this decision must not in any way be taken as casting any reflection on the individual character of the applicant or, indeed, of his parents. This is the case now of Mr. and Mrs. Dera. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about the parents, and I accept fully what he says. It is not the case that anyone has said that this young man has committed any security crime. It is simply that he fits into the nationality rules. I know that it is difficult, and something which, if I were in the same position, I might feel strongly in exactly the same way, but there is no individual reflection on these good people.
How, then, do all these general considerations affect the case of Peter Dera? Peter was born in Britain and has a British mother. His father was born in Poland, and there are close relatives still living in that country. Therefore, Peter was ineligible to join the R.A.F. unless exceptional circumstances were judged to exist which would justify the exercise of the Secretary of State's power of waiver.
There has never been any doubt about Peter's keenness to join the Service. He has been, for example, a member of the Air Cadets for some years. We do not apply the nationality rules to membership of the Air Training Corps. The A.T.C. is not a recruiting body for the R.A.F. It has a much wider rôle in training youth in leadership and citizenship.
We naturally hope that a large number of boys will be attracted to the Service through their experiences in the A.T.C. but, as I have said, we do not insist on applying the nationality rules to its mem-

bers. We do, however, take care to warn boys who join the Corps that entry will not guarantee their subsequent eligibility for the Royal Air Force. Much the same considerations apply to the award of flying scholarships or special flying awards, and I am sure that our policy in these matters is the right one. These rules can only be properly applied to those who wish to make the Service their career, and who actually apply. One cannot make a hypothetical estimate of whether a young man or woman can join.
As I have said, Peter Dera was a keen A.T.C. member, and he applied to join the Royal Air Force as a craft apprentice in January, 1966. In the event, Peter did not do sufficiently well in the selection tests to qualify for an apprenticeship, and it proved unnecessary to resolve the question of whether the nationality rules should be waived. He was not up to standard.
This setback did nothing to deter him, however, and in October, 1967, he again applied, this time for adult entry where standards are different. The nationality question had now to be resolved. Peter Dera was clearly ineligible under the rules unless an exception could be made and a special waiver granted on behalf of the Secretary of State. He was told by the officer in Edinburgh who was dealing with this application, that the rules were there, they were strictly applied, and his chances of entry into the R.A.F. were poor; but his papers were sent to the Ministry of Defence for the individual consideration which every case merits and gets.
Peter Dera's papers were most unfortunately delayed through being mislaid during a reorganisation in the section concerned with this work. I have already written to my hon. Friend about this. It was inexcusable and unfortunate that if anything were to go wrong, it should go wrong in this case.
Of course, there turned out to be factors pointing in different directions. This is of the very nature of nationality rule cases. Where, for example, a parent comes from an Iron Curtain country, the extent of the present connection between the family in England and relatives on the other side—and thus the extent of the danger of potential pressure—can cover the whole spectrum from overwhelming to non-existent. This may


have to be set against some previous parental service to the Crown, but again the importance of this can vary from very great to negligible.
It is against this sort of background that I must set the applicant with his personal merits and otherwise and the extent of the Royal Air Force's need for his services. Ultimately, I must decide out of all this whether the circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to justify ale use of the power of waiver. After duly weighing up all these factors in Peter Dera's case, it was decided that it could not be regarded as meriting exceptional treatment. I have reviewed this case again, but, conscious as I am of the great disappointment it must be to this young man and to his parents, and reluctant as I am to discourage any keen young recruit, I can see no reason to alter that decision.
As I have said—I hope that hon. Members will accept this—I am always acutely conscious of the effect on the individual of decisions like the one I have had to make in Peter Dera's case, but I must emphasise the other side of the coin. There will always exist, in these difficult and borderline cases a degree of conflict between the needs of the State and a desire to do justice to the individual.
My hon. Friend also referred to race relations. I remind him of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

said on the Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill:
The Crown will retain discretion in the case of those engaged on secret work particularly those concerned with defence. The Crown will also retain discretion to apply nationality rules to employment in the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, and the Diplomatice Service. This is provided for in subsection (6) of Clause 25. The United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Law and Practices points out that most countries have rules of this sort. In essence, they provide that established recruits to the public service must be British citizens. They are not discriminatory in the racial sense." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 61.]
I remind the House of the statement of the conference of Privy Councillors on security in 1956, which said that the practice in such situations of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State is the right one. This is as true today as it was then. My hon. Friend, again true to his concern, states that he will put this matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. There is nothing I can do about that. It is not for me to decide whether it should go to him. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have given this matter a great deal of consideration. I am not conscious of maladministration in the light of the nationality rules. I regret that I cannot change my decision in this case, as much as I personally would like to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.